free web counter

Maries Two Cents

Far Right Conservative And Proud Of It!..... Stories That I Think Need Special Attention, And, Of Course, My Two Cents :-)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Del City, Oklahoma, United States




Click for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Forecast





Homeland Security Advisory

September 27, 2007

Feed Shark Turbo Tagger

Ron Paul Supporters Threaten To Throw Rudy Giuliani Off Ferry

Ron Paul Supporters Go Nuts; Taunt Giuliani On Ferry

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU


Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” and his campaign distanced itself from a raucous pro-Paul demonstration on a Mackinac Island ferry Friday night, a Paul spokesman said Monday.YEAH RIGHT!

In the incident, Paul’s supporters taunted former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for alleged complicity in the attacks.



Spokesman Jesse Benton said the campaign was aware of Internet reports about the demonstration, which occurred late Friday when Giuliani boarded a ferry loaded with Paul supporters leaving a Michigan GOP conference. No Paul campaign officials were involved, Benton said.

According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: “9/11 was an inside job” and “Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?” — an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harrassed him as he took shelter in the ferry’s pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City.

“It was awful,” said Wyszynski, who supports Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination.

“I was embarrassed to be a Republican. Never, ever, have I seen such a disgraceful performance.”

Its pretty bad when you have to distance yourself from your own supporters. I know that not all Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy theory nuts, YEAH RIGHT! but these clowns are the ones taking the headlines. They should be ashamed. They are only hurting the very candidate they claim to support. Below is a blurry video of the incident mentioned above.




Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dont feel sorry for Ron Paul at all. He created these LUNATIC supporters with his crazy rants. Ron Paul is NO Republican and is an absolute lunatic just like his supporters. Or should I say his "Cult". These people are seriously disturbed and are becoming dangerous. Time to start ripping Ron Paul supporters to shredds!



Labels: , ,

144 Comments:

Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Just like their candidate they act and sound more like liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans as they falsly claim.

September 27, 2007 9:01 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Ken,

These people have gone nuts!

It's time we start getting rid of this crud before they do something truly drastic to one of our Candidates.

September 27, 2007 9:13 AM  
Blogger Jennifer said...

I cannot believe they did that. Don't they realize how utterly stupid that is. But then again, look who they support. Even if someone was thinking of supporting him, this stunt would have killed all possible hope. (great news for us fredheads!) What morons!

September 27, 2007 9:42 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jennifer,

I cant believe this isnt getting more play in the news, well yeah I can, George Soros and MoveOn.org are probably funding Ron Paul as well.

I think the Democrats snuk in a blame America first, Lunatic Liberal in on us.

Ron Paul is NO Republican.

No Republican's candidates supporters would treat another candidate in this manner.

Even though I support Fred, I would still love to show up at a Giuliani event or McCain or Romney or any of our Candidates just to hear what they have to say.

I wouldnt be caught dead at a Ron Paul event now.

September 27, 2007 10:08 AM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

I dunno, Marie. I thought the "Workout" album was pretty good. What? Not Ru Paul? Ohhhh...Ron Paul. Yah, well. He's an idiot.

September 27, 2007 10:13 AM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

Hey, where were Rudy's SS guards?

Just asking...

September 27, 2007 10:13 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Uncle P,

That's what I was wondering where was security?

LOL Ru Paul

September 27, 2007 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our time." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

September 27, 2007 11:33 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Anon,

On this issue Judge Napolitano is off his rocker.

Ron Paul and his supporters are the dullest crayons in the box!

September 27, 2007 11:42 AM  
Blogger TexasFred said...

Throwing Rudy the RINO over board isn't a bad idea really, but I have to agree, Ron Paul and most of several hundred supporters ARE moonbats...

Fred Thompson - President 2008

September 27, 2007 1:04 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

TexasFred,

Thank's for visiting my blog :-)


Rudy may have RINO tendancies and God knows I want Fred to win, I cant wait till he really get's warmed up.

But I still love all our candidates (Even the ones I dont agree with) and they deserve more respect than this crap.

But this is rediculous with these Ron Paul supporters.

They are getting dangerous and must be stopped!

September 27, 2007 1:13 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Are you people effing nuts?! This is a *made up* story. Two truthers among about a hundred Ron Paul supporters doesn't equal one hundred Ron Paul supporters threatening to throw Giuliani off a boat!

Here's some items that are *actually real* just to give some perspective:

-Rudy Giuliani's supporters held a fundraising event recently that charged $9.11 per person. Where's your self-righteous indignation at that?
-FOX News cameras were on the boat too. If any of this actually happened, Murdoch would be plastering it on FNC 24/7. But nope, all we got is "one eyewitness said..."
-Ron Paul beat Giuliani at thc Mackinaw Straw Poll. Isn't that nice?
-The story was made up by a Romney aide. Perhaps he's bitter that Romney has spent tens of millions and is now polling in the single digits in the latest AP and Gallup Polls
-Oh yeah, speaking of fundraising, we spontaneously "spammed" $500,000 in three days.
-Ron Paul's apparently an embarrassment to the Republican party, yet he's invited to the GOP Trust Dinner with Frudy McRomney. I guess they realized he's the only one who draws seats, and, well, cash.

oh, and by the way, I love all these "Ron Paul isn't a liberal in disguise." It is the Bush administration that has created a sprawling government that tax-and-spend liberals could only dream of. Your beef is with Bush, not Ron Paul.

September 27, 2007 1:59 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

I guess you didnt watch the video, glad I posted it to prove my point.

No I believe you people are the nuts! And getting nuttier by the day.

I think you are confused, but then again with all those drugs Ron Paul want's to legalize I'm not surprised.

No my beef is definately with Ron Paul and his maniac supporters not with President Bush.

Have another drink of Kool-Aid on me!

September 27, 2007 2:17 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

And why are you Ron Paul supporters to affraid to post a blog or a page?

Whatcha scared of?

September 27, 2007 2:18 PM  
Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

Ron Paul is a moron. I was really turned off when he advocated disbanding the FBI and CIA. Plus, all of his supporters seem to be kooks.

September 27, 2007 2:31 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Of course I've seen the video. Now, can you specifically locate the part in the video for me where in we hear a menacing mass of truthers threatening Giuliani?

September 27, 2007 2:57 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Daniel,

Thank's for visiting my blog :-)

Yeah, Ron Paul turned me off with that crazy crap about dismantling the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.. All the measures that keep us safe.

He and his followers are isolationists who want drugs legalized (Personaly I think they are high now), Troops brought home from all around the world, and no more support for Israel, I think you get the drift here.

Not to mention America is to blame for everything.

Yes with this crazy outburst attacking Giuliani Ron Paul's Cult followers have PROVEN to be kooks!



Paul,

You didnt hear the Ron Paul supporters?

I clearly heard them say "Throw him off the Ferry" and "Chicken****" when he jumped off the bow to get away from them before they could throw him overboard.

Go watch it again.

September 27, 2007 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Rad Joe said...

marie's two cents,

You "fred-heads" simply baffle me. What kind of country are you hoping to see? Are you even aware of Fred Thompson's atrocious voting record?! Since actions speak louder than words, allow me to enlighten you -- Fred Thompson:

– Voted YES on HR 3162: PATRIOT Act
– Voted YES on H. J. Res. 114: Use of Military Force Against Iraq
– Voted YES on HR 5005: Homeland Security Act of 2002
– Voted YES on HR 1: No Child Left Behind Act
– Voted YES on Digital Millennium Copyrights Act
– Voted YES on S 27: Torricelli Amendment No. 122 [favors government intervention of the free market to benefit government]
– Voted YES on S.J. Res 14: Flag Desecration Amendment [opposes 1st Amendment]
– Voted YES on S 625: Domenici Amendment No.2547: To increase the Federal minimum wage and protect small business.

So, according to his voting record (his ACTIONS), Fred Thompson opposes the first amendment, opposes the fourth amendment, opposes Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, wants more inefficient federal bureaucracy to destroy public education, and opposes the Free Market.

In addition to Fred Thompson's apparent opposition to the Constitution, he is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations --- the international organization that endorses the erosion of American Sovereignty with establishing a North American Union (you can read about it on their own web-site!). Don't worry, Freddy's not the only member of CFR seeking the Presidency... so are Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Bill Richardson.

It's quite sad that there are so many people (like you) who are SO opposed to liberty, that you perceive Ron Paul and his liberty-supporting followers as "radicals"... I never thought I would see the day when the Constitution was considered a radical idea.

Ron Paul is the only real chance Americans have at seeing the restoration of their liberties, and the CONSTITUTIONAL Republic that the founding fathers conceived.

"Government that is big enough to provide you with everything you need, is big enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

September 27, 2007 3:25 PM  
Blogger Obob said...

bad form on Paul's part with his groupies

September 27, 2007 3:33 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Rad Joe,

I am well aware of Fred's voting record.

He is a true Republican, not some rediculous Libertarian that snuk himself in as a Republican.

Ron Paul is the only real chance Americans have at getting us attacked again repeatedly!

Well I take that back, the Liberals are quite a sideshow on this issue as well, but they are begining to make more sense than you Ron Paul supporters. AND THAT'S BAD!

Ron Paul IS radical and so are his supporters, getting back to the original content of this thread, the video I posted PROVES IT!




Obob,

No foolin, oh well they will eventually be the downfall of this Kool-Aid drinker.

September 27, 2007 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Joanne said...

I got nuthin'.

Hi marie,

Hope you're well.

I love your passion.

We don't agree on a lot, but you've got cajones! And I admire that!

I want to stay on your good side, otherwise I'm toast!

Take care.

September 27, 2007 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Joanne said...

I hit publish before I finished my comment. I wanted to tell you that my nephew just joined the Army. His dad fought in Desert Storm. He's a bird colonel.

I hope he'll be okay.

That's all.

I've got nuthin'.

September 27, 2007 4:36 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

I have to laugh at these so called libertarians trying to push Ron Paul off as a conservative. As I said before and I'll say it again Ron Paul is a libertarian and since libertarians can't get elected to dog catcher they try (dishonestly) to sneak under the wire calling themselves conservatives. Wake up arpees, truthers or whatever you nutbags are calling yourselves these days. Ron Paul is not even close to being Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson learned from his isolationist mistakes and Ron Paul keeps espousing his mixed up thoughts about it.

arpees are morons and Ron Paul has got all of you idiots fooled because you keep giving him money and he laughs all the way to the bank because he know he has no chance of being elected arpees are total dupes. It used to be libertarians would be proud to tell everyone they were completely bonkers. Why does that idiot keep bringing up Judge Napolitano, I listen to that guy in the morning sometimes and he is way off base on so many different issues. Yeah, I can call myself a judge too.

Joanne, God bless your nephew and give him a hug and a kiss on the cheek from me. Tell him I said Thank you!

September 27, 2007 5:41 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Joanne,

I swear you are just about the ONLY Democrat I can tolerate!

You are not so far out there, that there is no coming back for you :-)

You have your beliefs and I have mine and yes sometimes we clash on issues but ya know what? That's ok, at least we can discuss them rationally. Well, for the most part lol

I am doing alot better, starting to get my old self back I think!

I hope (YOU) are ok.

Well God Bless your nephew. He is the one with cojones!

He will be ok, Iraq is still a fragile Democracy that still has to take root and they have a way's to go yet but things seem to be calming down. Al-Qeada is getting thier butt whooped daily.

What an honorable man, and he just up and volunteered, good for him!

I will keep him in my prayers and you tell him he is doing the most important job for America there is!

That is really enjoyable to me. When my son enlisted it was June 11, 2001 exactly 3 months to the day before we were attacked. Can you imagine what I was thinking on 9-11?

And then of course when he went to war? My gosh I know you will worry yourself silly, but I feel it will be ok for you.

You make sure your nephew knows we are cheering and praying for him and expect to see him come home to a hero's welcome :-)

Because if I ever see anyone spit on a Troop thier ass is grass!

September 27, 2007 5:51 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

Amazing isnt it?

These loones are just crawling out of the woodwork.

I say they get thier own little Island somewhere and call it the "Isolationist Nation of Ron Paul" and put up a big "No Tresspassing" Sign!

Not that any of us would ever visit, then again with Ron Paul in charge we wouldnt be allowed in.

They could all have Kool-Aid waiting for the big arrival of "Big Brother" and the whole Jim Jones layout.

September 27, 2007 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Libertarian001 said...

Our people are crazy?

We are not the ones who tear down and stomp on Ron Paul Posters

We are not the ones that let our candidate laugh at others during the debates.

We are not the ones who support inflation.

You guys claim to be a member of a party that has Reagan as a big figurehead, yet you don't listen to the fact that Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul did a lot of work together.

The Ron Paul people are not crazy, I think you need to reexamine your own people.

September 27, 2007 6:09 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Libertarianoo1,

Oh Good God Yes your people are bazzare as hell.

Haha where the heck are you people coming from?

I had no idea people were tearing down Ron Paul posters and stomping on them. I wouldnt even do that no matter how much of a loon I think Ron Paul is.

It's better than wanting to throw that loon overboard off a Ferry!
Like your bunch and Giuliani.

Hey, if people laughed at Ron Paul during the debate then they were starting to get aware of the same thing I am, that Ron Paul is a friggen Lunatic.

Let me tell you a few things about Reagan, he was NOTHING like Ron Paul.

Reagan would have NEVER sacrificed our National Security to ANYONE!
No Matter what he had to do.

That's what I want in a President, someone who is NOT affraid to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I want someone with balls!

And Ron Paul lost his long ago!

September 27, 2007 9:19 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Did I forget to mention you people are jackbatty as hell?

September 27, 2007 9:20 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

If I feel like it I'd tear all the ron paul posters down and pee on them. You nut cases are so caught up with conspiracy theories that you make me sick. Black helicopters filled with Israeli, UN invaders to capture all our national monuments and make us all wear blue helmets.

I'm going to go down to the Court house with Skye this weekend and and make sure I expel a few words about nut case conspiracy theories too right after I beat the crap out of a few anti war protesters with their own signs.

September 28, 2007 6:30 AM  
Blogger Gayle said...

Whenever a conservative blogger does a post on Ron Paul, the loons come out of the woodwork, Marie. LOL! It's almost immediate. I posted about him and it didn't take five minutes after the post was published for one of them to pop up. It's amazing! Wordsmith ran an experiment and the same thing happened to him. They must sit on their computers all day googling Ron Paul. How pathetic is that?

Ron Paul only runs as a Republican because he knows he wouldn't get anywhere by running as a Libertarian. He's a total nitwit who wants us to roll up the rug and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. Sometimes it's tempting but it won't work! He sure doesn't belong on the same stage with conservative presidential contenders running for the office of President of the US!

September 28, 2007 6:32 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

So, according to his voting record (his ACTIONS), Fred Thompson opposes the first amendment, opposes the fourth amendment, opposes Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, wants more inefficient federal bureaucracy to destroy public education, and opposes the Free Market.


Way to point out how 2 + 2 equals 5, rad joe.



Joanne, God bless your nephew for enlisting. I hope he stays safe.

September 28, 2007 7:30 AM  
Blogger A.C. McCloud said...

Notice none of the Paul supporters coming in here are defending that crazy talk about Rudy stealing the gold after he blew the towers, etc. The twoof, in other words.

As to Judge Napalitano comparing Paul to Jefferson, he's forgotten his grade school history. The Louisiana purchase and Barbary Pirates just to name two. LOL.

September 28, 2007 7:32 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

If I feel like it I'd tear all the ron paul posters down and pee on them. You nut cases are so caught up with conspiracy theories that you make me sick. Black helicopters filled with Israeli, UN invaders to capture all our national monuments and make us all wear blue helmets.

Oh Man LOL!

Have a great time Henn :-)




Gayle,

This is insane lol

If they are sitting there googling Ron Paul then they have some real problems.

I saw where Word went on that Ron Paul surge lol



Word,

LOL



AC,

That's right, none of them are distancing themselves from this behavior.

That's because they want DRUGS! They all want drugs to be LEGAL!

This is bad enough, can you see us actually see us under a Ron Paul Presidency? My God!

September 28, 2007 7:57 AM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

Umm...Marie?
That quote from Rad Joe ("A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.") wasn't from Thomas Jefferson. It was actually said by President Ford in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974. It's often misattributed to Barry Goldwater and Davy Crockett, of all people, just as the comment "Whenever I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver" is frequently misattributed to Hermann Goering. (It was actually Hans Johst in his 1933 play Schlageter.)
Hey, I'm just sayin', y'know?

September 28, 2007 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I admire everyone's passion, I really do. It takes a lot to come right out and call someone an idiot, regardless of political affiliation. I don't condone the actions of Paul's supporters towards Guiliani, but that's my opinion.

What I don't understand is how attacks and generalizations can be made toward an entire group of people for the actions of a few. To call RP and his entire support base looney for the actions of some (that get publicity), is tantamount to calling all white Americans racists for the actions of the klan. Or, all black Americans murders because you saw a news story that some of them were involved in gang violence.

Furthermore, this country has a rich history, in fact a foundation, upon questioning the actions of its government. With out genuine curiosity and a desire for what is best in the sight of people and their natural rights, we go no where. It takes on different looks for different people, most of which we won't agree with, but that's the beauty of this country. I would argue that anyone who questions government does so because they love this country and its people (as off-base as we think they may be). If they hated it, they'd make honest efforts to leave.

Personal attacks are for people who have exhausted all factual information for their arguments. When it resorts to that, reason and logic have taken a back seat to emotion, which easily empowers anyone to make bold statements that they may whole-heartedly believe, but cannot reasonably support.

September 28, 2007 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Rad Joe said...

the wordsmith from nantucket,

No, I simply summarized Fred Thompson's actions into statements you can understand (yet apparently still deny).


marie's two cents,

Perhaps you should look up Ronald Reagan again. You said "Let me tell you a few things about Reagan, he was NOTHING like Ron Paul." Well, RONALD REAGAN SAID:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Sounds like Ronald Reagan WAS a LOT like Ron Paul. And do you know what Ronald Reagan said about Ron Paul?

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

As far as the ferry goes, was anyone HURT? DID they throw Rudy Giuliani overboard? No. So unless you are opposed to the idea of freedom of speech (which wouldn't suprise me since you support Fred Thompson!), I don't see how this event even comes close to what WILL happen if Fred Thompson is SELECTED to be the next president. And let's see what someone who WAS ACTUALLY THERE has to say about the events (their letter, not mine):

As a registered attendee of the GOP's Mackinac conference and an eyewitness to the incident between Ron Paul supporters and Mr. Giuliani, I found your 9/26 article "Paul campaign faults heckling of Giuliani" to be an inaccurate and one-sided description of what took place.

The article states that Paul supporters accused Mr. Giuliani of complicity in 9/11. I saw nothing even close to this. What I did observe was a man with a megaphone shouting questions such as "Who is the defender of the Constitution? Who will lead us out of tyranny? Who will repeal the Patriot Act? Who will end the war?" etc., to which supporters would raucously reply "RON PAUL!". Some supporters sang "Battle Hymn of the Republic". The emphasis of the chants was on liberty, restoring the Constitution, and ending the war in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Ron Paul supporters are highly critical of the "9/11 Truth" theories due to their logical incoherence and the unjustified, sensationalized characterization of Paul supporters as "9/11 Truthers" in the media. As your article noted, Congressman Paul has publicly denied any sympathy or connection to this particular conspiracy theory. Further association of the Ron Paul campaign with "9/11 Truth" is simply a repetition of the poor yellow journalism of others.

Ed Wyszynski's account of the ferry ride in the article's third paragraph is very, very different from what I witnessed. He states that Paul supporters "threatened to throw Giuliani overboard" and "harassed him as he took shelter". In contrast to Congressman Paul, who waited in line with other passengers and rode among them to and from Mackinac Island, Mr. Giuliani and his entourage completely ignored the line we had been waiting in for twenty minutes and boarded the ferry. Quite the contrary to the article's suggestion that he was harassed or chased into seeking shelter by a mob, Mr. Giuliani was secured in the pilothouse before any Ron Paul supporters boarded the ferry. He came out only to quickly exit the ship.

Accusations that Paul supporters threatened Mr. Giuliani or advocated violence in any way are false. Portraying a group of seated individuals expressing themselves as threatening is outrageous. As the only Republican running on an antiwar platform, Ron Paul's campaign is the last place one should look for a utilitarian conception of violence. As I have stated: the emphasis of the impromptu rally was on liberty, restoring the Constitution, and ending the war in Iraq.

Thank you for your time. As a student of journalism, I hope to see the journalist's role continue to be that of the "watchdog" for democracy and truth- which our nation needs now more than ever. As the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics states: "Seek truth and report it"!

September 28, 2007 8:28 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Uncle P,

Leave it to you to confuse these people with Fact's lol

Thank You!



Anon,

You are the only one so far to distance yourself from this insanity, that I admire.

I cant help but lump all Ron Paul supporters together because of thier actions, and that video is proof of thier crazyness.

I have been doing alot of research on Ron Paul and trying to find out exactly what he stands for and why people are supporting him, but he lost me with his looney conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers thing and the government having anything to do with it. And then the legalization of drugs really got me, then this episode with Giuliani.

I mean seriously, this government cant keep any secrets whatsoever and if any of the conspiracy theory stories were true they would be plastered on the front page of the New York Times.

That begs the question why on earth would anyone believe this nonsense? What earthly reason would our government have for attacking ourselves? It doesnt even make sense, that's why I find Ron Paul such a mess.

As for the personal attacks, look at the video, what else am I suppose to think?

September 28, 2007 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

Well, that's an awfully subjective interpretation of the video. I watched the three videos available on the incident, and I don't see any of what you mentioned. I heard plenty of talk of him "getting off the ferry", but nothing about "throwing him off". Whatever though. After all, one bitter eyewitness from the Romney campaign said it, so it's gotta be true!

"when he jumped off the bow to get away from them before they could throw him overboard."

Uh, he walked off the boat surrounded by his aides. You seem to be making it sound like it was the last helicopter leaving Saigon.

On the other hand, I most definately heard "chickenshit". Not exactly turn the other cheek, but I bet some of the NYC Firefighters have the same opinion too. Try calling them loons.

So what came out of this story? One or two truthers out of one hundred. Some Ron Paul supporters overzealous, who blew a really good PR opportunity? Most definately! I think the only reason this half-baked story came to life is because many a Ron Paul supporter has been obnoxious/zealotous before, and it makes this "boat full of truthers" theory seem plausible. But Giuliani's campaign hasn't made a statement, nor did the FOX News cameras pick up any Gold. So expect this story to fade into obscurity, just like Michael Steele saying "It's done for Ron Paul" back in May.

And I'm sure there was one or two truthers there. But sadly, 'one eyewitness says' + 'one truther' *does not* equal a boat full of one hundred truthers. That'd be collectivism, and that's dangerous. After all, I don't assume you represent all Fred Thompson supporters.

And yes, on all domestic issues, Ron Paul is the most conservative Republican running. In 30-second-soundbyte-land, maybe opposing the war does automatically revoke every possible Republican domestic issue he has, but everywhere else, last time I heard, limited gov't, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-more homeschooling, and a humble foreign policy are Republican issues. And as the other poster mentioned, Ronald Reagan had many a kind word to say about Ron Paul. So don't just automatically presume that being a character on Law and Order makes one the next Ronald Reagan.

Oh yes, and Reagan left Beirut after the Marines were killed. He said that we underestimate how irrational the Middle East is. I don't call that 'cut-and-run', I call that smart.

September 28, 2007 9:15 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

Anoonymous arpee said...Personal attacks are for people who have exhausted all factual information for their arguments.

For the last seven years that's all we've been hearing is personal attacks on the President from arpees about how their freedoms have somehow been absconded. You have no credibility and your arguments are repetitive and with out merit. I have never once heard a single argument that an arpee has made how their rights or their freedoms have been violated, none.

George Bush spent too much money but the people wanted it that is a problem and your useless libertarian movement has done little to help things and you have become nothing more than more whiners from a different quarter.

You need to just sit down, no one is listening, you make no sense and you are quite anoying and not man enough to say who you are so you're balless too. What a combination. Gee that's who I want running the country;

Ron Paul, a balless, incompetent that can't make an argument that makes any sense and won't fight to maintain our freedom. That's quite the campaign platform.

September 28, 2007 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"That's because they want DRUGS! They all want drugs to be LEGAL!"

Were you trying to make fun of Ron Paul supporters, and lump a diverse group of people from all economic and political walks of life as druggies, or were you actually serious in saying that Marijuana should remain illegal?

500 prestiguous economists, including Milton Friedman signed a letter to Bush in 2005 asking he legalize Marijuana, because economically, it would be insane not to do so. I'm sure they're kooks.

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of kids denied financial aid for college because they tried weed in high school find your statements hilarious. (Especially since those convicted of most any other crime can still legally gain financial aid).

I'm sure all of these people below would find your statements just hilarious as well!

John Adams

64 years old
Lebanon, Tennessee
October, 2000

Shot to death during a SWAT drug raid while watching TV. The house didn't match the description on the warrant.

57 years old
Belpre, Ohio
October, 1998

Shot 8 times by police in drug raid. They were looking for his son.

Charity Bowers
7 months old

In the air over Peru
April, 2001

As part of a long-standing arrangement to stop drug shipments, U.S. government tracking provided the information for the Peruvian Air Force to mistakenly shoot down a Cessna plane carrying missionaries. Killed in the incident were Roni Bowers, a missionary with the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, and her daughter, Charity. As of August, 2003, the United States is considering reinstating the shoot-down program. Perhaps they think by now we've forgotten.


Rudolfo "Rudy" Cardenas

43 years old
San Jose, California
February, 2004

Rudy was a father of five who was passing by a house targeted by narcotics officers attempting to serve a parole violation warrant and the police mistakenly thought he was the one they were there to arrest. They chased Cardenas, and he fled, apparently afraid of them (they were not uniformed). Cardenas was shot multiple times in the back.

Dorothy Duckett, 78, told the Mercury News she looked out her fifth-floor window after hearing one gunshot and saw Cardenas pleading for his life. "I watched him running with his hands in the air. He kept saying, 'Don't shoot. Don't shoot,'" Duckett said. "He had absolutely nothing in his hands."


Jose Colon
20 years old
Suffolk, New York
April, 2002

Jose was outside the house where he had come to repay a $20 debt, when a drug raid on the house commenced. He was shot in the head by SWAT.


Troy Davis

25 years old
North Richland Hills, Texas
December, 1999

During a no-knock raid to find some marijuana plants he was growing, he was shot to death in his living room. There are disputed accounts regarding whether he had a gun.

Anthony Andrew Diotaiuto

23 years old
Sunrise, Florida
August, 2005

Anthony worked two jobs to help pay for the house he lived in with his mother. He had permit for a concealed weapon because of the areas he traveled through for his night job. Sunrise police claimed that he had sold some marijuana, and because they knew he had a legal gun, decided to use SWAT. Neighbors claim that the police did not identify themselves. Police first claimed that Anthony pointed his gun at them, and later changed their story. Regardless, Anthony was dead with 10 bullets in him, and the police found 2 ounces of marijuana. Article.

Annie Rae Dixon
84 years old
Tyler, Texas
January, 1993

Bedridden with pneumonia during a drug raid. Officer kicked open her bedroom door and accidentally shot her.

Patrick Dorismond
26 years old
New York, New York
March, 2000

Patrick was a security guard who wanted to become a policeman. He was off-duty and unarmed when he went out with friends. Standing on the street looking for a taxi, he was approached by undercover police who asked to buy some marijuana from him. Patrick was offended by the request (he didn't use drugs), and a scuffle ensued. Dorismond was then shot to death by the police.

Shirley Dorsey
56 years old
Placerville, California
April, 1991

Rather than being compelled to testify against her 70-year-old boyfriend (Byron Stamate) for cultivating the medicinal cannabis she depended upon to help control her crippling back pain, Shirley Dorsey committed suicide. She saw it as the only way to prevent the forfeiture of their home and property. Despite her suicide, Stamate was sentenced to 9 months prison, and his home, cottage, and $177,000 life savings were seized.


Juan Mendoza Fernandez
60 years old
Dallas, Texas
September, 2000

Police found a variety of drugs when they raided the Fernandez' home. However, Juan apparently believed he was the victim of burglars during the raid, and was shot while trying to protect his 11-year-old granddaughter. He and his wife had been married 36 years and had four children and 13 grandchildren.


Curt Ferryman
24 years old
Jacksonville, Florida
August, 2000

Undercover agents were attempting to arrest Ferryman, who was in his car and unarmed. A DEA agent knocked on the car window with his gun to get the suspect's attention, and the gun went off, killing him as he sat in the car.

25 years old
Wilmington, Delaware
November, 2006

A retired Marine Sergeant who served two tours in Iraq, was peacefully sitting on the front stoop of a house, when police in unmarked cars who had him under surveillance (believing based on his acquaintances that he might be part of a narcotics ring) pulled up and tasered him three times, causing him to go into convulsions and throw up. Because he had not gotten his hand free from his jacket quickly enough (while convulsing) an officer then shot him point blank in the chest with three .40 caliber rounds. Hale's widow has filed a civil lawsuit.

Willie Heard
46 years old
Osawatomie, Kansas
February, 1999

SWAT conducted a no-knock drug raid, complete with flash-bang grenades. Heard was shot to death in front of his wife and 16-year-old daughter who had cried for help. Fearing home invasion, he was holding an empty rifle. The raid was at the wrong house.

Clayton Helriggle

23 years old
Eaton, Ohio
September, 2002

Clayton was shot to death while coming down the stairs during a suprise raid. He was carrying either a gun or a plastic cup, depending on the report. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found.

Esequiel Hernandez
18 years old
Redford, Texas
May, 1997

Hernandez was shot and killed by a Marine sniper in camouflage who was part of a military unit conducting drug interdiction activities near the Mexican border. Esequiel was out herding his family's goats and had taken a break to shoot at some tin cans with his antique rifle.

John Hirko
21 years old
Pennsylvania
1997

An unarmed man with no prior offenses was shot to death in his house by a squad of masked police. In a no-knock raid, they tossed a smoke grenade in through a window, setting the house on fire. Hirko, suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, was found face down on his stairway, shot in the back while fleeing the burning building. When the fire was finally put out, officers found some marijuana seeds in an unsinged plastic bag.

Lynette Gayle Jackson
29 years old
Riverdale, Georgia
September, 2000

Shot to death in her bed by SWAT team.

Kathyrn Johnston
88 years old
Atlanta, Georgia
November, 2006

Kathryn lived in a rough neighborhood and a relative gave her a gun for protection. When she noticed men breaking through her security bars into her house she fired a shot into the ceiling. They were narcotics officers and fired 39 shots back, killing her. The police had falsified information in order to obtain a no-knock search warrant based on incorrect information from a dealer they had framed. After killing Johnson and realizing that she was completely innocent, they planted some marijuana in the basement. Eventually their stories fell apart federal and state investigations learned the truth. Additional facts have come to light that this was not an isolated incident in the Atlanta police department.

Tony Marinez
19 years old
De Valle, Texas
December, 20001

Officers conducted a drug raid on a mobile home in De Valle. Martinez, who was not the target of the raid, was asleep on the couch when the raid commenced. Hearing the front door smashed open, he sat up, and was shot to death in the chest.

Peter McWilliams
50 years old
Laurel Canyon, California
June, 2000

Peter was a world-famous author and an advocate of medical marijuana, not only because he believed in it in principle, but because it was keeping him alive (he had AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma). After California passed a law legalizing medical marijuana, Peter helped finance the efforts of Todd McCormick to cultivate marijuana for distribution to those who needed it for medical reasons. Federal agents got wind of his involvement, and Peter was a target for his advocacy. He was arrested, and in federal court was prevented from mentioning his medical condition or California's law. While he was on bail awaiting sentencing, the prosecutors threatened to take away his mother's house (used for bail) if he failed a drug test, so he stopped using the marijuana which controlled his nausea from the medications and allowed him to keep them down. He was found dead on the bathroom floor, choked to death on his own vomit.

Ismael Mena
45 years old
Denver, Colorado
September, 1999

Mena was killed when police barged into his house looking for drugs. They had the wrong address.

Pedro Oregon Navarro
22 yeqrs old
July, 1998

Following up on a tip from a drug suspect, 6 officers crowded into a hallway outside Navarro's bedroom. When the door opened, one officer shouted that he had a gun. Navarro's gun was never fired, but officers fired 30 rounds, with 12 of them hitting Pedro. No drugs were found.


65 years old
Compton, California
August, 1999

Mario was shot twice in the back in his bedroom during a SWAT raid looking for marijuana. No drugs were found.

27 years old
Brooklyn, New York
July, 2001

Charmene was a passenger in a car driven by a drug suspect. State troopers and DEA agents were in the process of arresting the driver when the trooper's gun went off and hit Charmene in the neck, killing her. Both passenger and driver were unarmed.

36 years old
Travis County, Texas
February, 2001

Donald Scott
61 years old
Malibu, California
October, 1992

Government agencies were interested in the property of this reclusive millionaire. A warrant was issued based on concocted "evidence" of supposed marijuana plantings, and a major raid was conducted with a 32-man assault team. Scott was shot to death in front of his wife. No drugs were found.

A later official report found: "It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."

Alberto Sepulveda
11 years old
Modesto, California
September, 2000

Alberto was killed by a shotgun blast to the back while following police orders and lying face down on the floor during a SWAT raid. He was a seventh-grader at Prescott Senior Elementary School.

Isaac Singletary
80 years old
Jacksonville, Florida
January, 2007

Isaac lived in a rough neighborhood and often brought out his gun to chase off drug dealers. So when he saw a couple of low-lifes conducting transactions on his lawn, he came out with it again and told them to get off his property. Except they were undercover narcotics officers so they shot him. Isaac managed to get a shot or two off in response, but the officers were able to finish him off.

Gary Shepherd
45 years old
Broadhead, Kentucky
August, 1993

When a Kentucky drug task force came to uproot his marijuana plants in August 1993, pot-grower and Vietnam vet Gary Shepherd told them, "You will have to kill me first," took out his rifle and sat down on his front porch. That evening he was shot dead in front of his infant son. Despite the fact that Shepherd never fired a shot and his family was pleading with authorities for negotiations, state police sharpshooters appeared from the brush without warning and opened fire when he refused to drop his rifle.

Alberta Spruill
57 years old
Harlem, New York
May, 2003

Police, acting on a tip, forced their way into Spruill's home, setting off flash grenades. She suffered a heart attack and died. It was the wrong address.

Ashley Villareal
14 years old
San Antonio, Texas
February, 2003

Ashley went outside at night with a family friend to move their freshly washed car under shelter. DEA agents, interested in her father, were staking out the house, and believing that her father was driving, shot and killed Ashley. The agents did not have a warrant for her father. Read The Murder of Ashley.



Kenneth B. Walker
39 years old
Columbus, Georgia
December, 2003

Walker and three companions were pulled over in an SUV by police in a drug investigation. No drugs or weapons were found, but Walker was shot in the head. Walker was a devoted husband and father, a respected member of his church, and a 15-year middle-management employee of Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Deputy David Glisson, who killed Walker, was fired three months later for failing to cooperate in an investigation into the shooting.


Accelyne Williams

75 years old
Boston, Massachusetts
March, 1994

Accelyne was a retired Methodist Minister and substance abuse counselor. After an informant gave police a bad address, a SWAT raid was conducted on the minster's home. The door was battered down, Williams was tackled to the floor and his hands tied behind his back. He died of a heart attack.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

September 28, 2007 9:31 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Rad Joe,

President Reagan never had a bad word to say about anyone.

I voted for President Reagan twice I know all about President Reagan. He was my first vote when I was old enough to vote.

President Reagan would NEVER have allowed drugs to be legalized, he would have NEVER believed our own Country attacked itself, and he certainly would NEVER have dumped Israel on the sidelines and said "You are on your own". He NEVER believed in Isolationism, and he knew the impotance of allies.

As for the Video was anyone hurt? Is that the point? NO!

The point is he was harrassed to the point he had to jump off the bow of the ferry just to get away from those goofballs and threatening to throw him off is NOT freedom of speech, that was a threat to his personal safety.

See here we go again, (This is what makes you people look so foolish) Fred Thompson SELECTED as the next President?

Just when I thought you were making some sort of sense you come off with a statement like that.

Ron Paul created all you goofballs with his conspiracy theories, and nutball beliefs.

September 28, 2007 9:32 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

My God!

You people are posting faster than I can reply to this crap!

September 28, 2007 9:34 AM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

Y'know, Paul, going back to 1992 to find cases where people have been shot by law enforcement officers in drug-related cases (some of them innocent, some not so much) proves that there are police officers who are careless, stupid, clumsy and/or trigger happy. It does not prove that smoking marijuana is a Good Thing.

September 28, 2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"He would have NEVER believed our own Country attacked itself."

Nor do the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters. Do you think we like being associated with truthers? Now that apparently one or two truthers being on a boat suddenly equals one hundred truthers on a boat, you can be sure we don't like being associated with truthers.

"And he certainly would NEVER have dumped Israel on the sidelines and said "You are on your own"."

Israel's got probably the best military force in the entire world. They can handle themselves fine. But if something happens to Israel, and Congress decides it's a threat to our national security, Ron Paul would certainly help Israel.

"He NEVER believed in Isolationism, and he knew the impotance of allies."

What a coincidence! So does Ron Paul! After all, non-interventionism means a helluva lot of trading and diplomatic relations.

"The point is he was harrassed to the point he had to jump off the bow of the ferry just to get away from those goofballs and threatening to throw him off is NOT freedom of speech, that was a threat to his personal safety."

I bet we did harass him. As much as Rudy needs to read books on foreign policy, there's just as much a need for many Ron Paul supporters to have "How to Win Freinds and Influence People" jammed down their throats.

But if people actually threatened him, law enforcement would be on that in a jiffy. If he walked off the boat the regular way, I'm sure Ron Paul supporters would have cleared the way. More likely story is that Rudy talks a tough talk on terrorists, but he can't even face Ron Paul supporters. (Or African Americans; see the empty podium at last night's debate.)

"Ron Paul created all you goofballs with his conspiracy theories, and nutball beliefs."

So you think the income tax and the federal reserve have done such wonderful things for us?

September 28, 2007 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"Y'know, Paul, going back to 1992 to find cases where people have been shot by law enforcement officers in drug-related cases (some of them innocent, some not so much) proves that there are police officers who are careless, stupid, clumsy and/or trigger happy. It does not prove that smoking marijuana is a Good Thing."

What that list shows though, is that if the DEA is using SWAT Team operations because an anonymous tipster reported that a undesirable African American or Mexican had a dime bag, it also explains why 700,000 people were put in jail in 2006 for minor possession, while selling a joint brings harsher penalties than being a rapist in some states.

And you're right. Marijuana is not a good thing. Luckily though, scientific evidence showing that the gateway effect is bunk, that Marijuana is not physiologically addictive, and that there's no such thing as a lethal dose of THC shows that it's not as if Satan himself planted it on Earth, either.

September 28, 2007 10:04 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

Your fingers are just moving right along today huh? lol

Hmmm, if this is such a "Non Story" why were there 3 different videos?

I dont see the difference in "The Thruthers" and Ron Paul supporters. Claify for me the difference.

And you cant defend bad behavior by pointing to others bad behavior.

Ron Paul isnt a Republican! No way! I have had Libertarians comment on here before that were pro-defense, pro-Global War On Terror (Which Iraq is one front) and other things I am for THE PATRIOT ACT, etc.. that made more sense than you have.

Look on my sidebar and you will find a link to "Mainstream Libertarians" and read them. They arent on the same cloud as you guys are.

So don't just automatically presume that being a character on Law and Order makes one the next Ronald Reagan.

Haha I like that. We all know how it worked out last time an actor was elected President dont we?

There will NEVER be another Reagan, they broke the mold.




Were you trying to make fun of Ron Paul supporters, and lump a diverse group of people from all economic and political walks of life as druggies, or were you actually serious in saying that Marijuana should remain illegal?


Yep



All those people and cases you pointed out will quadruple (or worse) if DRUGS in General are legalized. I can see restricting Marijuana for Medical purposes, but that's as far as I am willing to go.


Nor do the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters. Do you think we like being associated with truthers? Now that apparently one or two truthers being on a boat suddenly equals one hundred truthers on a boat, you can be sure we don't like being associated with truthers.

That is simply not true, I dont see any difference in the two.


What a coincidence! So does Ron Paul! After all, non-interventionism means a helluva lot of trading and diplomatic relations.

Not True. Ron Paul want's to drag every Soldier home from all around the world leaving our interests unguarded just because he doesnt think they should be depolyed ANYWHERE!! Cut off our allies, and stay in our own little Country away from everyone. That's Isolationism.


Ron Paul is a dangerous man. And you supporters of his are becoming unhinged when you taunt another political candidate the way you did Rudy.

I am going to keep exposing every nutball thing he and his supporters do.

The Public needs to be aware of this danger.

September 28, 2007 10:38 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

You're right Marie, if drugs are legalized the crime rate will skyrocket and we'll be paying to build more prisons. The big joke will be we'd be paying for people to become dependent on drugs too. Marijuana is just another scam that the aprees are trying to perpetrate on us. That's all we need is more pot heads. As if my generation and those afterwards aren't brain dead enough already they want to make more brain dead potheads. That stupid and worn out argument doesn't fool me its bullshit plain and simple. Pot turns you into a pot head. What else needs to be said? Where current crop of arpees born yesterday?

September 28, 2007 11:10 AM  
Blogger J_G said...

Ooops almost forgot. Arpee isn't ready for primetime and never has been nor will he ever be.

September 28, 2007 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Rad Joe said...

marie's two cents, j_g, and whoever else is a devout supporter of prohibition,

What you cannot seem to comprehend is the concept of self-ownership. By having laws that prohibit to use or ownership of drugs, you are stating that the government owns every person's body. This is simply FALSE. I own my body, so it is not up to you or the government to determine what I put into my body. Now, I don't use drugs (ANY drugs), but if someone wants to use drugs, who are you to say what they can or cannot put into their body?! YOU DON'T OWN IT! Their body is not YOUR property!!

However, if said drug-user commits a crime (which means harms another person, or damages someone's property) then that person should be punished for their crime. But they could have committed the same crime under the influence of LEGAL, OVER-THE-COUNTER or PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE as they committed under the influence of the prohibited drug. So why don't you prohibit ALL drugs AND alcohol?! Because you want to continue to believe that the government owns the bodies of the citizens.

Your right marie, Ron Paul is very dangerous to the current establishment that claims ownership of it's citizens and their labor, because Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY.

And since you say you don't see the difference between a 9/11 truther and a Ron Paul supporter, please show me just ONE quote BY RON PAUL indicating that he believes that the attacks on September 11th. And don't try and make the leap that because he appears on Alex Jones' radio show that he supports Alex Jones' beliefs.

It looks to me like you are doing the exact same thing people who hate Catholics do: just because a few priests were charged with mollestation, you think ALL priests are child mollestors.

September 28, 2007 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"I dont see the difference in "The Thruthers" and Ron Paul supporters. Claify for me the difference."

Well, that's a pretty easy question. Most Ron Paul supporters believe that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Hijackers, while the truthers don't.

September 28, 2007 12:30 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 28, 2007 12:31 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

rad joe says...What you cannot seem to comprehend is the concept of self-ownership. By having laws that prohibit to use or ownership of drugs, you are stating that the government owns every person's body.

No I'm not I'm stating that you pot smokers are a danger to me and interfere in my right to be safe from potheads.

Rad whatever said...because Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY.

That's a joke too. Ron paul has no idea how to protect us when he says he wants to shut down the FBI and CIA. He wants to cut the m,military too leaving us open to attack and smothering our opportunities abroad because our military was designed from the very beginning to be an aggressive force to protect our monetary and commercial interests and not just be a home defense force.

I repeat for the last time, Arpee has never been ready for prime time. He is not a modern Thomas Jefferson because Jefferson learned from his mistaken views. And you libertarians cannot win elections. What Else needs to be said. The prime example of the foolishness and uselss ness of libertarians is right now the congress and the press is about to attack the president for his stand against expanding the schip program to include people that don't want or need it. He will be attacked and belittled until he relents and the people will say we want free health care. Arpee wouldn't score a single vote from the average American today because he would say the people need to pay for their own health care.No one believes that now.

September 28, 2007 12:34 PM  
Blogger wade said...

Wow I read the whole little 'debate'-if you can call it that between the Paul's and the Fred's and it's pretty clear Thompson's supporters don't ever use logic. Only ad hominems.

September 28, 2007 12:36 PM  
Blogger wade said...

By the way, in regards to the drug war, I could point you in the direction of any DOJ statistics reference. In those references you would find that over half of all federal prisoners, and most state prisoners are in jail for non-violent offenses. 2/3 of those are for drug offenses, which I'm assuming are for possession-consumption-selling. So in the sentence where you said crime would go up--I find that hard to believe, since most 'criminals' these days (and these are only the DOJ facts, take them with a grain of salt) are non-violent ones.

Not to mention that not one person in the history of the universe has died of a result of strict marijuana consumption. Smoking and driving--those numbers are also minuscule compared to the alcohol numbers...so I'm not sure where that conversation was going, but I felt like the blog needed some facts.

September 28, 2007 12:53 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

You potheads never learn

Smoking and driving--those numbers are also minuscule compared to the alcohol numbers.

Pothead

PotheadII

I've woprked with enough potheads in my life to know potheads are dangerous to life and limb. I shouldn't have to worry about being killed or maimed by a pothead or writing up accident reports caused by potheads. That's the facts about potheads and no amount of cooking your statistics will ever change my mind.

Next, no amount of BS from arpee will ever get him electted to office of President, he is not Presidential material he takes the money of his supporters and laughs all the way to the bank because he already knows he can't get elected and i bet he takes matching federal funds too. If he does he's a traitor to your cause.

As far as being in jail for possesing pot. if you are so stupid that you get caught smoking pot you belong in jail and need a frontal labatomy or has already had one from smoking pot. Nobody and I mean nobody gets caught smoking pot, nobody.

September 28, 2007 1:40 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Holy Crap.

I need to catch up

September 28, 2007 2:37 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

As if my generation and those afterwards aren't brain dead enough already they want to make more brain dead potheads.

LOL!



More jails, more drug abuse treatment centers, Narcotics anonymous would have a field day!

September 28, 2007 2:49 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Rad Joe,

What you cannot seem to comprehend is the concept of self-ownership. By having laws that prohibit to use or ownership of drugs, you are stating that the government owns every person's body. This is simply FALSE. I own my body, so it is not up to you or the government to determine what I put into my body.


Bingo!


You know all these excuses for the legalization of drugs would be a whole diggerent ballgame if we were talking just about pot, but when it comes to having a 10 year old hooked on heroin that tends to get me ticked off!

And if you dont think children would be able to get thier hands on them your nuts because minors buy alcohol all the time.

Think about this, drugs are legal under a Ron Paul Presidency, everyone in the Country would be stoned. The crime rates would sky rocket, and I'm not just talking about stealing I'm talking about Rape, Murder, there would be tens of thousands of accidents, the courts would be tied up in law suits forever there isnt enough room to house prisoners as it is let alone after this mess.

Cant you picture the collapse of the Country?

Sounds intrigueing to me too.

September 28, 2007 3:09 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

"I dont see the difference in "The Thruthers" and Ron Paul supporters. Claify for me the difference."

Well, that's a pretty easy question. Most Ron Paul supporters believe that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Hijackers, while the truthers don't.


But Ron Paul himself drumbed up the possibility that we attacked ourselves!

If what you are saying is true, then there are two very different groups supporting Ron Paul.

Which then makes things even more difficult because we cant weed you people out from the "Truthers"

How will I know for sure which nutroot I'm talking to?

September 28, 2007 3:14 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Wade,

C'mon, you know as well as we do those little "Non-Violent" crimes you are talking about are stealing and little misdimeanors like that right?

What can you imagine they are stealing for? Maybe thier crack habbit?

Maybe they were stealing food for thier families because mom and dad were to strung out to feed them.

I'm telling you the legalization of drugs "Generaly" would tear this Country apart and that is NOT what the framers had in mind!

September 28, 2007 3:22 PM  
Anonymous superkoopa said...

Marie,

I won't try change your mind or shove more of Ron Paul down your throat. I respectfully disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but you have the right to your opinions and to express them freely.

I just want to politely suggest that you try to refrain from labeling an entire group of people as "crud", "lunatics", "dangerous", "nuts", "kooks", etc etc etc. It makes you come off as childish and irrational. And I must admit I was a bit embarrassed to realize that you are 16 years older than me.

You mentioned that you've been doing research on Ron Paul, and I applaud you -- many Americans don't make the effort to properly research all the candidates. However, if your research has turned up that RP thinks the government had a hand in 9/11, then I think you are looking for facts in the wrong places. Ron Paul talks about "blowback," which is significantly different than saying "the US caused 9/11". For example... if you poke me over and over and over again, I might eventually slap you. That doesn't mean you deserved to be slapped, but it probably could have been avoided if you didn't keep poking me (please excuse the crude simplicity of my analogy). I don't think any (mature) Ron Paul supporter would argue with you if you honestly disagreed with RP’s policies... but it is frustrating to see people misinterpret and misconstrue and downright lie about what he stands for.

Regarding the drug issue (because it amused me a bit), I think you need to take a step back. No one is suggesting that drugs are "good". But many of us believe that you have the right to do what you want with your own body. If you want to have a beer or smoke a joint at the end of a long day, go for it. What right do I have to tell you that you can't? (I'll mention that I've never done any drug, alcohol excluded.) Just because we think certain drugs should be legalized doesn't mean we think people should do them -- the two ideas are mutually exclusive. But if you can't take care of yourself, the government surely isn't going to be able to.

I realize that some people who support Ron Paul are over-the-top and annoying (it bothers us too, because it makes us all look bad). RP's message is very attractive to people who are unhappy with what our country is turning into, so he will no doubt attract some passionately angry citizens.

I am just a stranger over the internet to you, but I am also a fellow citizen and human being. I do not think you are crazy just because you support a certain candidate. I do not think you are dangerous, or a drug-addict, or any less of a person than I am. I do not think you're malicious or stupid (although possibly misinformed). Please have the same respect for us. There are a lot of people in this country who still believe in freedom. I don’t think that's crazy...

September 28, 2007 3:27 PM  
Anonymous solonjr said...

I'm sorry, this story is a misrepresentation of what actually occurred. There may have been one crackpot on board, but most of the story was a fabrication

September 28, 2007 3:40 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

What you arpees don't understand is the majority of arpee supporters are nut cases and conspiracy theorists. If you're 16 years yonger than Marie that makes you young enough so you have no idea of the lunatics that the libertarians, John Birchers and the other conspiracy feeders are all about. Truthers, Illuminati, Bildebergers Council on Foriegn relations, Trilateral Commission, did I miss one? All of that is arpee and you can have it, it's all yours have fun with it. You'll love waking up in the middle of the night with black helicopters hovering over your house and ATF and dea bustin in your your house for smokin and joint while you clean you BB gun and the planes flying low spraying chemtrails and all the new Harp antennas they are putting up in your neighborhood. Invite the Klan, and skinheads they're a fun bunch too and they go right along with all that crap. Really the Jews are behind it all they control all the banks and the media. sheesh, give me a break. arpee exposed, gotcha!!

September 28, 2007 3:57 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Superkoopa,

I just want to politely suggest that you try to refrain from labeling an entire group of people as "crud", "lunatics", "dangerous", "nuts", "kooks", etc etc etc. It makes you come off as childish and irrational. And I must admit I was a bit embarrassed to realize that you are 16 years older than me.



Well you may have a point, I had no idea there were two different groups of people suppoting this guy.

But you all seem to have one thing in common, you are all supporting this dangerous man.

But last time I checked this was my blog, with my thought's and opinions on it. And likeminded thinking people who comment here.

Down the blog further I have video's of Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Jr show back in 1988. He does want ALL drugs legalized, not just a few!

With that rationale how can I label Ron Paul as anything else but a kook?

How can you people not see how dangerous this Country would become should that happen?

My God! We are at war with an enemy that doesnt give a damn about any of this stuff, how can we combat the Global War On Terror if we have to worry about will Joe be to stoned to be sent to the combat zone?

I can see the future through Ron Paul and it's bleak to say the least.

September 28, 2007 4:17 PM  
Anonymous superkoopa said...

j_g,

"If you're 16 years yonger than Marie that makes you young enough so you have no idea of the lunatics that the libertarians... are all about."

Yes, I'm 16 years younger than Marie. I'm married, I own my home, I pay my taxes, and I'm paying into the Social Security that you'll soon be collecting (if you're lucky). I may be half your age, but that’s been plenty long enough to see the mess this country is in. I'm the frog that's been dropped into a pot of boiling water... you're the one that's been sitting there since it was lukewarm and can't tell how hot it's gotten. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I think it's rude for you to dismiss me so easily just because I'm younger.

But back to your point about me "having no idea of the lunatics" etc etc. Again, you are doing yourself a huge disfavor by lumping everyone together like that. You can find horrible groups of people everywhere, and I'm not going to attempt to defend them. But just because there are some crazy people, doesn’t mean all "libertarians" are insane. Isn't that the kind of thinking that fuels racism?

"You'll love waking up in the middle of the night ..."

Okay, I gotta be honest... I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with your post, but I will assume that you are trying to be sarcastic? I'd actually be interested in your elaboration, because your thoughts seem to be all over the place. This is what I was able to dissect from your comment: First you talk about the ATF and DEA breaking into my house for smoking pot while I clean my gun. Then we have planes releasing biological agents and HAARP beaming high-frequency radiated power from my neighborhood. I'm partying with the KKK and Nazis because we're best friends. And something thrown in at the end about the Jews controlling everything. Wow.

I'd really like you to clarify what you're trying to say... is this what you think RP supporters want, or is this what you want? If it's what you want, then I can see we are never going to agree. If this is what you think we want, you are sorely mistaken on so many levels. You've got giant government beuraucracies (ATF, DEA) taking away Constitutional rights (2nd Amendment), corrupt big government (deliberately poisoning us and covering it up), corporate-supported perpetual war (HAARP), racism and bigotry. Sounds like a pretty scary world, and I pray you don't think this is anything close to what we are fighting for. Anyways, I guess there’s not much point responding to this if I don't know what you're getting at. =/

September 28, 2007 5:03 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Hey!

Let's leave Marie's age out off this topic!

September 28, 2007 6:52 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Superkoopa,

LMAO!

Is that what you took away from Jenn's comment?

Well at least you are a funny Ron Paul supporter!

I think the point she was making was all the references that Ron Paul has made about the government attacking it's own Country that Ron Paul and most of his supporters believe.

And black helocopters in the night and well....all that conspiracy theory junk!

September 28, 2007 6:56 PM  
Anonymous superkoopa said...

“But last time I checked this was my blog, with my thought's and opinions on it. And likeminded thinking people who comment here.”

Marie,

I apologize if you feel I was trying to censor you, that’s obviously not what I was intending. It is your blog, and you can say whatever you want on it. But if you’re going to keep your blog public, there’s always the possibility of a non-likeminded-thinking person commenting. I was merely making a suggestion, you can heed it or ignore it, to be less discriminatory. It does nobody any good to assign hateful labels, and it only makes you look bigoted... but that’s your prerogative. =/

About the “War on Drugs”... sigh... I understand your concern, although I don’t share it. If Ron Paul says he wants to legalize ALL drugs, so be it. I don’t necessarily agree with that (although I do think marijuana should be legal) but you’ve gotta admit... when’s the last time a politician was consistent for 20 years??? Anyways, back to the drug issue. Let’s say you’re right and Ron Paul actually legalizes ALL drugs, which I honestly don’t see happening (shamelessly stolen from someone else's post):

- addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They could get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their expensive habits.
- addicts could seek help by going to doctors — no longer afraid of being prosecuted for their medical problems.
- criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn't compete with the low, free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.

Etc etc etc... This is all in the extreme case, but I fail to see how legalizing drugs will spiral our country into turmoil. People are going to do drugs whether it’s legal or not… so keeping them illegal only perpetuates criminal activity, prevents addicts from receiving proper care, eliminates quality control, and promotes the “cool” factor that draw in our youth. Besides, if RP were President I doubt he’d go head-first into legalizing heroin and LSD anyways... but I digress.

Marie, thank you for clarifying j_g’s cryptic post. The reason it threw me off is that I have never heard of any of those conspiracy theories associated with Ron Paul or his supporters. In none of my educated conversations with average RP supporters have any of these topics come up (and I’m sure you’re aware we loooove to talk!). So I think you are again misinformed about who “most of his supporters” are. Again (and again and again) I respectfully request that you not lump all of us together with a *very* few extremists.

Anyways, I could continue on with this debate (I’m actually almost enjoying it) but I think my husband will be upset if I spend anymore time on this… =( Plus I'm no good debating when I'm sleepy. Thank you for letting me have my say, I hope you have a great weekend. Good luck in the elections, and let the best candidate win.

September 28, 2007 7:34 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

I'm just a rude person that doesn't like arpees. How's that?

Figure it out for yourself it sounds like you already ate the bait. Tell your neighbors to stop demanding the government (aka me and Marie) to pay for their health care, they are the problem.

I won't collect social security in 9 years 10 months and 2 days I'm not part of that system, can't collect from it, could care less what happens to it, figure that out.

September 28, 2007 7:40 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Superkoopa,

- addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They could get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their expensive habits.
- addicts could seek help by going to doctors — no longer afraid of being prosecuted for their medical problems.
- criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn't compete with the low, free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.



Well now see that is where the problem lies.

I can understand the wanting to get rid of the drug dealers and all but what happens when all this crap is sold in stores available to the General Public, but oh you have to be 21 or older to buy it? That wont hold because minors buy alcohol all the time. They will just have someone else purchase it for them.

Or another senario:

Me~! What if I am allowed to buy Cocaine or Heroin? I have never touched the stuff before but by it being legal and all I desire to purchase some of that crap, I get hooked, become an addict, what's to say I wouldnt go through my money faster than all get out and I still need to feed my habit so I steal to provide for it, I get caught, I go to jail. I am taking up an extra bed that could be left for the people that really need to be locked up.

The people I stole from and the State of Oklahoma sue me. I am tied up in court battles for years.

Ok, so then they decide I need drug counseling, (State paid for drug counseling) because all the Betty Ford clinic's are filled up by that time and they have had to create a new program paid for by the taxpayers.

I get out of taxpayer drug rehab and I decide I have to have some more coke, but this time I huffed the coke while I was driving therefore causing a 30 car pile up on I-40.

Lawsuits, more Taxpayer funded drug rehab, a bed taken up again in jail unvailable for a child molestor, murderer, etc. And God help me if anyone died in that 30 car pile up, then we are talking an entirely new ballgame.

We have to build more prisons to keep up with all the drug cases, of course John Edwards would be happy as hell (Ambulance chaser that he is) Lawyers would benefit big time from all the lawsuits, etc..

How about our lawmakers? Ron Paul for example? How can we be sure he wouldnt be sitting up in the White House high as a kite?

Dont you see where I am going with this?

This is absolute Lunacy!

September 28, 2007 8:59 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Sheesh....that's a lot of commenting since I last came in here.

All this drug talk gave me a headache.

I need some aspirin.

September 28, 2007 11:46 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Furthermore, this country has a rich history, in fact a foundation, upon questioning the actions of its government.

Questioning is one thing. Treating your government like the enemy, and entertaining conspiracy theories while ignoring evidence and logic to the contrary is something else, altogether.

Do you think we like being associated with truthers?

Ron Paul has no one to blame but himself for entertaining and indulging the truthers.

And don't try and make the leap that because he appears on Alex Jones' radio show that he supports Alex Jones' beliefs.

He appeared on Alex Jones. More than once. Why on earth would he indulge a conspiracy nut like that?

Ron Paul does encourage "truthers". Why do you suppose he's gained a following amongst truthers and conspiracy loons? It's because he flirts with the truther movement. You don't indulge Alex Jones or Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth if you want to be taken seriously.


Wow I read the whole little 'debate'-if you can call it that between the Paul's and the Fred's and it's pretty clear Thompson's supporters don't ever use logic. Only ad hominems.

Wade....you're an idiot.




Ron Paul talks about "blowback," which is significantly different than saying "the US caused 9/11". For example... if you poke me over and over and over again, I might eventually slap you. That doesn't mean you deserved to be slapped, but it probably could have been avoided if you didn't keep poking me (please excuse the crude simplicity of my analogy). I don't think any (mature) Ron Paul supporter would argue with you if you honestly disagreed with RP’s policies... but it is frustrating to see people misinterpret and misconstrue and downright lie about what he stands for.

superkoopa is not an idiot. I like her civility. But here, I take issue with the whole "blowback" reasoning. What is implied is that U.S. foreign policy is the problem. It is not. Perception of U.S. foreign policy might have some contributions to it. But that is far different than the actual foreign policy we have engaged in.

If you read Robert Kaplan's books, "Imperial Grunts" and "Hog Pilots and Blue Water Grunts", you will see that we engage in military interventionism in small deployments all over the world, to great benefit for the U.S. and also for other countries. Contrary to the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky view, we are not propping up dictatorships, but promoting democracies. We are making things better in areas where there is no media presence, looking for the next abu Ghraib to sabotage the enormous amount of good work we are doing by holding up a magnifying glass to the ounce of bad.

Islamic terrorists have plotted against Germany and France, among others. These two countries stood in opposition to the war in Iraq. So...what did France and Germany's foreign policies have to do with "blowback" against them? What Ron Paul fails to acknowledge is radical Islam as the root cause of the problem. Not American foreign policy. Islamic terrorists are killing innocents all over the world and it has nothing to do with our foreign policy and has everything to do with their fundamentalist practice of a religion that at its wahhabist and salafist core, rejects modernity and perceives anything that is not under Sharia Law as an abomination and a threat.

This is my number one reason for standing in opposition to Ron Paul.

I don't care what one thinks of the war in Iraq. RP saying we need to withdraw IMMEDIATELY from Iraq is so irresponsibly dangerous and naive, it blows my mind. So unrealistic...even the democratic candidates, despite what they may publically say to their voters, actually aren't serious in putting forth legislation that will get troops out immediately. They recognize the pottery barn rule, among other things.


so you have no idea of the lunatics that the libertarians, John Birchers and the other conspiracy feeders are all about. Truthers, Illuminati, Bildebergers Council on Foriegn relations, Trilateral Commission, did I miss one?

North American Union? New World Order?

Ron Paul seems to be one of those who's jumped aboard this conspiracy bandwagon.

September 29, 2007 12:22 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"How about our lawmakers? Ron Paul for example? How can we be sure he wouldnt be sitting up in the White House high as a kite?"

Is George Bush sitting up in the White House drunk as a skunk? No.

September 29, 2007 12:38 AM  
Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

I can understand wanting a libertarian, but Ron Paul is crazy. I can't imagine shutting down the FBI and CIA. Pulling out of Iraq now would be disastrous. If we declared that we wouldn't defend our allies, then either Israel would fall or they would use nukes. If we don't defend Taiwan, how long do you think it would take for China to invade them?

Also, a great many Paul supporters are morons. They spam polls, and almost every conspiracy nut supports him.

September 29, 2007 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"I can understand wanting a libertarian, but Ron Paul is crazy. I can't imagine shutting down the FBI and CIA."

Ron Paul's ultimate point isn't about shutting down the FBI and the CIA; it's about having intelligent people interpreting the information, and that we can't solve our problems by piling more money and bureaucracy onto it.

"Pulling out of Iraq now would be disastrous."

Possibly. But for the time being, as long as we're in Iraq, we're also continuing a self-fulfilling prophecy of creating more terrorists than we could ever destroy. I don't know what the solution is, but whoever said staying there is a good thing either?

"If we don't defend Taiwan, how long do you think it would take for China to invade them?"

We did nothing for China when Japan murdered millions in the Second Sino-Japanese War. When the Japanese did human medical experiments on thousands of Chinese Civilians (Unit 731, look it up), the US gave Amnesty to *everyone involved* so we could obtain the data at the victims' expense in order to "get back at the Ruskies".
(By the way, your precious CIA overthrew Mossadegh, a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953, for the sake of getting back at the Ruskies too.)

And of course, we did nothing when tens of millions were being killed in the cultural revolution. I know that's China, and not Taiwan, but the point is, since when has the US given a damn about anything in China?

Also, we haven't gone to war with North Korea, and a nation that's actually evil, a nation that *actually has WMDs*, and we won't go to war with them because China would get involved. If China is a disincentive for going to War against N. Korea, why would we bother going to war over Taiwan?

"Also, a great many Paul supporters are morons. They spam polls..."

A list of things Ron Paul has "spammed":

-More Straw Poll victories (real life) than any of the Republicans. I'm guessing your next rebuttal will be to say that straw polls don't count, even though Straw Polls were apparently considered the greatest thing since sliced bread when Huckabee won an SC one, when Hunter won the Texas Straw Poll purposely stacked to be full of warhawk delegates, and when Romney spent $2,000 per vote on the Iowa Straw Poll.
-numerous 1,000+ people turning out at Ron Paul events all across the country, along with $100,000-a-day fundraisers to compliment them
-As of recentGallup/AP polling, we're also pretty much "spamming" the same percentages as Romney.
-Check out ronpaul2008.com and see how much money we're "spamming".

September 29, 2007 1:25 PM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, libertarians (a term that seems to include Ron Paul supporters) favor indoor plumbing, but want to get rid of the city public works department.
Incidentally, now that I know the secret to getting humongous levels of site traffic, I'm going to go back and change the tags on all my posts to include "Ron Paul". Thanks for the tip, Marie!

September 29, 2007 2:38 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I guess I haven't done my duty, because I haven't thrown anyone overboard lately...

Please.

So really, I'm not getting this. You have a few nutjob supporters, which the candidate in question and the vast majority of his supporters condemn, and it makes him a nutcase, and all his followers too? Let me just ask this, if it had been Thompson supporters doing something like that, what would you have said?

Just asking.

September 29, 2007 5:53 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Let me just ask this, if it had been Thompson supporters doing something like that, what would you have said?

Just asking.


Rofl!

It's the funniest form of debating: substitute the name of the person being talked about, and then tack on "just asking".

Happened recently over at Gayle's blog:

Would you have done this same post if he would have said, "F--- Clinton", when Clinton was President??

Just asking.

September 29, 2007 8:15 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Hi Marie, well, I was out waving my flag today calling for Victory for the Troops with Skye this afternoon so I'm doing pretty good. Forgot my dang camera though, Skye has pics that'll be up tomorrow.

As far as arpee goes, this guy has been running for President since 1987 and hasn't got more than a couple of votes. Don't you arpee supporters think something is a little amiss when a guy that says he's for smaller government and and against all things that has to do with government is now part of the entrenched government?

You guys just keep handing over your money to him. When he retires after he doesn't get this nomination and walks away with the campaign money stashed in his back pocket both he and I will be laughing at all you saps.

Arpee, Arpee, Arpee, Arpee ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha. Has a nice night, sweet dreams.

September 29, 2007 9:13 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

good job Marie..expose the hypocrites for who they are!

September 29, 2007 9:35 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

It is insane, Marie, and I see where it got even worse since my last comment here. Hoo boy!

September 30, 2007 5:26 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Word,

Ron Paul does encourage "truthers". Why do you suppose he's gained a following amongst truthers and conspiracy loons? It's because he flirts with the truther movement. You don't indulge Alex Jones or Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth if you want to be taken seriously.



You bring up an excellent point, either way by supporting Ron Paul they are associating themselves with the "Truthers", and these freaks seem to turn out at every Ron Paul event.

Now that we have worn out the "Why drugs should NOT be legalized arguement" (I needed asprin too) maybe we can find out why Ron Paul want's to pull out of Iraq Immediately leaving utter chaos behind!

September 30, 2007 8:37 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

"How about our lawmakers? Ron Paul for example? How can we be sure he wouldnt be sitting up in the White House high as a kite?"

Is George Bush sitting up in the White House drunk as a skunk? No.




Even if George Bush were to take a drink (Which he doesnt) it would be LEGAL because alcohol is LEGAL!

September 30, 2007 8:40 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Daniel,

It kinda reminds us of the '04 election doesnt it? When Kerry supporters were spamming all the polls.




Uncle P,

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, libertarians (a term that seems to include Ron Paul supporters) favor indoor plumbing, but want to get rid of the city public works department.
Incidentally, now that I know the secret to getting humongous levels of site traffic, I'm going to go back and change the tags on all my posts to include "Ron Paul". Thanks for the tip, Marie!


LOL! ROTF! Do it Uncle P, let's grab thier attention and make them answer some tough questions.

Let's see where these people are coming from.

You are to much Uncle P, lol

September 30, 2007 8:45 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I guess I haven't done my duty, because I haven't thrown anyone overboard lately...

Please.

So really, I'm not getting this. You have a few nutjob supporters, which the candidate in question and the vast majority of his supporters condemn, and it makes him a nutcase, and all his followers too? Let me just ask this, if it had been Thompson supporters doing something like that, what would you have said?

Just asking.



I would condemn those Thompson supporters and distance myself from them and certainly tell them a thing or two if I were to run into them at a Thompson event.

I wouldnt want to associate myself with nutballs like that.

You can alway's complete your journey to the Dark Side young Skywalker by throwing the "Truthers" overboard :-)

September 30, 2007 8:52 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

Hi Marie, well, I was out waving my flag today calling for Victory for the Troops with Skye this afternoon so I'm doing pretty good. Forgot my dang camera though, Skye has pics that'll be up tomorrow.

Good on you GF!

I cant believe you forgot your camera you carry that thing everywhere I thought? lol

You and Skye make quite a team :-)

Did you beat up any anti-Victory idiots this time? :-)

September 30, 2007 8:56 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Angel,

I'm trying to :-)



Gayle,

LOL! Bring 'em on haha

September 30, 2007 8:58 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Ok so what have we learned here in the last few days?

Ron Paul doesnt like Indoor plumbing, He want's everyone in America to be able to get high if they so desire (And I thought this guy was a Doctor) he should already know the dangers of that.

He want's to abolish the CIA, The FBI, Dept of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, The Dept of Water and Power, the IRS, and just about every imagineable Dept. we have created to keep ourselves from getting attacked repeatedly. (Actually the IRS doesnt sound like a bad idea lol)

There are two yet equaly important groups of people supporting this guy, those that believe we attacked ourselves on 9-11 and those that dont. Yet those that dont are affraid to counter those that do for fear of loosing votes.

Ron Paul want's to bring our Troops home from ALL OVER the World, and throw Israel overboard.

Isolate all of us from the rest of the world and piss on our allies.

End the war in Iraq NOW knowing what kind of chaos would follow, and snatching Victory out of the mouths of our Troops that WANT to finish thier mission and WIN!

Have I missed anything?

September 30, 2007 9:10 AM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

Ok, so you'd distance yourself from those supporters and that's what most Ron Paul supporters have done. Yet somehow it makes us crazy but not you? I don't understand.

Oh yeah, and us nutjobs raised a million dollars today, in about a week. I just thought I'd mention...

September 30, 2007 9:22 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert,

I have yet to see any Fred Thompson supporters taunt ANY of our candidates and threaten to throw them overboard.

I dont know one Thompson, or any other candidates supporters (Except Ron Paul's) that believe we attacked ourselves on 9-11.

And I dont know any candidates supporters that believe we should pull out of Iraq NOW!


You guy's havent distanced yourselves from those "Truther" people or they wouldnt hand out fake $1 dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face on them and 9-11 Truth up the upper corner of the bill at Ron Paul events.

You let those freaks run rampant!

Yes I know about the $1 dollar bill episode.

September 30, 2007 9:32 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert,

I forgot, 1 million dollars in one day huh?

I hope you nutjobs enjoy throwing your money away :-)

September 30, 2007 9:49 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

You guy's havent distanced yourselves from those "Truther" people or they wouldnt hand out fake $1 dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face on them and 9-11 Truth up the upper corner of the bill at Ron Paul events.

I bet the truthers must wet themselves ga-ga over the discovery of the twenty dollar bill folded up to show the WTC and Pentagon with smoke coming out, and Osama spelled out.

September 30, 2007 10:05 AM  
Blogger Phil said...

Hi Marie,

Wow that Video says a lot, I always knew that Ron Paul and his supporters and the other Woosies on here supporting that Idiot Ron Paul are totally whacked out kooks.

September 30, 2007 10:06 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Word,

I still havent figured out how to fold a $20 in that way. I have seen it, but I dont know how to fold one like it.

And since the the $20 with Jackson on the face came out in what year? We obviously had plenty of time to get ready to attack ourselves didnt we? lol

Wet themselves' haha





Phil,

That Video tells the tale doesnt it?

I know what I saw on there and I know what was said, but Paul up above refuses to believe it even when it is there in full view to see!

September 30, 2007 10:18 AM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

You're missing the point. Hypothetically, if you had a very very small contingent of nutjobs, you'd distance yourself, and that'd be okay, but when it's a candidate you don't like in the same situation, he's crazy. Double-standard, don't you think?

As for the dollar bills, I don't have any, nor any other Paul supporters I've met, so maybe I'm out of the loop.

And it was a million in a week, we reached the goal today. But that's nothing compared to the big boys I understand. As you know, Ron Paul doesn't take corporate money or government money, so we have to do it grassroots style. How are Thompson's corporate donations holding up by the way?

September 30, 2007 10:20 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

Ok tell me something if Ron Paul isnt a nutball why is HE writing for a website called Conspiracy Planet ?

Check that whacked site out! And yes it says: By Ron Paul

And since you dont seem to know about these fake dollar bills I will enlighten you:

Blake D. Dvorak
Fri Sep 28, 12:30 PM ET

Chicago

The video presentation had just ended and the words flashed across the screen:

"Are you ready, Chicago?"

Chicago was. Packed into the Hyatt Regency's Grand Ballroom the several hundred cheering, chanting fans were riled up - except for the two infant twins in their double baby carriage. They were sound asleep as their mother cheered along with the rest.

A man in an "Investigate 9/11" black t-shirt was walking up and down the aisles handing out fake dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face where Washington's should have been. In the corner of the bill, instead of a dollar amount, it read "9-11." Above the picture, where it should have read United States of America, it read "Unmask State Sponsored Terrorism."

I was in Ron Paul country. A strange land inhabited by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and suburban families who clothe their infant twins in "Ron Paul Revolution" pajamas; those who despise what the current administration has done in Iraq (heck, what the Woodrow Wilson administration did in Europe) and those who despise Hillary Clinton; those who live on the fringe and those who live next door.

An odd bunch, to be sure, but one that can really belt out the Star-Spangled Banner.

Other than their shared patriotism, what unites them is the man they affectionately refer to a "Dr. Paul," the long-shot libertarian Republican whose supporters clog Internet straw polls and guard their hero's image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media. Maybe they have a point. The only other press I see is a local network camera crew.

He takes the stage just then and the crowd explodes to its feet. From my vantage point at the edge of the crowd (standing room only) I can't see over the cheering mass, many now on their chairs. But I wonder: This, for a small, aging congressman from Texas who has no chance, in this cycle or the next, of ever being president? As I look around I notice the crowd doesn't care. Caucuses, primaries, polls - what are they compared to the "Champion of the Constitution"?

Eventually the crowd quiets down and the ordinary, frail-looking Dr. Paul begins. The first thing I notice is that as a speaker, Paul is unexceptional. He rarely changes cadence, his applause lines are adorned with a simple up tick in volume and delivered clumsily, almost as if Paul suddenly remembers to throw out some red meat.

"Personal liberty is economic liberty and true freedom and following the Constitution," he begins, "means that we will be bringing our troops home." The immediate crowd explosion was deafening, but it was just the beginning.

"I ask every young person I meet, 'What is it you're interested in?'" Paul says. "They do talk about freedom; they do talk about the Constitution. But I think the whole concept of liberty, of allowing individuals to lead their own lives and not be pestered by the government to tell them what to do." And then the meat: "And I think also the young people sort of like the idea that the Internet ought to be left free!" Pandemonium ensues.

Paul was certainly warming up, but so was the crowd.

"When we become sticklers for the Constitution, we will find out that the method whereby we collect taxes, we will find out it is absolutely unconstitutional" -- and again, the red meat -- "we will get rid of the IRS!" Epileptic seizures throughout the hall.

And so I learn my first lesson about Paul and his supporters: While they are all fervently anti-war, judging by crowd noise alone, it is not the biggest issue with them.

Of course in this style of ad-lib stump speech, there is a dangerous chance for rhetorical mistakes. Rookies in their first presidential primary can sink their candidacies with one ill-chosen phrase. But Paul, who barely registers in the polls, is pleasantly free of speaking carefully. His proposals come full-throated and without qualifications:

What do we replace the 16th Amendment with? "Nothing!"

What do we replace the "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve with? "The gold standard!"

But as appealing as several of these policy prescriptions might be for some conservatives, such as leaving the United Nations for good, Paul always manages to go too far. For instance, the prescription drug companies, he says, "are no better than the military industrial complex," which is one of the far left's most cherished phrases.

Another example: "A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways," a comment guaranteeing political oblivion for anyone serious about reaching the White House.

These statements are just part of the reason most Republicans will keep a safe distance from Paul's candidacy. The shame of it is that there are probably a lot of Republicans who share Paul's "minding-our-own-business" flavor of foreign policy and economic libertarianism. It's just that so much of it comes off as something Noam Chomsky might have written 30 years ago.

As much as many Republicans might want out of the United Nations, most would balk at abandoning Israel to the mullahs, or Taiwan to the Chinese. In either case, it is not terrorists reacting to some real or imagined slight by the "Great Satan," but sovereign states whose belligerence is checked only by American power.

The other part of Paul's candidacy hurting its appeal with the larger electorate is that it's a circus of ideologues each with their own pet causes. Paul deftly satisfies the factions individually with his peculiar politics, but what this amounts to is a grab-bag of radical policy proposals. Some might say that this is libertarianism or "true Republicanism," but the fact is that it leads to a chaotic campaign, whose only guiding light is some mythical American past where an unsullied constitutional order reigned. Not to mention that Paul brings out the kind of person who spends their days pining for the gold standard and that's not the person you want your daughter bringing home.

It does, however, make for fun political theater. A Ron Paul rally is stage of characters. There's the aforementioned guy wearing the black 9/11 t-shirt who tells me he supports Paul's call to do away with the Federal Reserve. (For the record, Paul does not endorse the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy.) Beside him is the young financial broker volunteering his time for the first real political experience of his life, because he likes Paul's promise of "sticking to the Constitution." The only thing they have in common with each other, it seems, is their passion for Dr. Paul, and that seems to be enough.

Speaking of whom, Paul is nearing the end of his 40-minute speech. "There is not enough noise coming out of Washington to drown our message. Our message will be heard."

As if in answer, the hall begins to seethe in a chorus of wild cheering. Then comes the chanting: "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" By now, even the twins are awake - and holding their ears.


Here is the link Ron Paul Country

He knows all about these people and is encouraging them. He isnt stopping them one bit!

Why isnt Ron Paul himself distancing himself from these wack jobs?

September 30, 2007 10:35 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert,

I forgot again, we drafted Fred to run, that's about the most grassroots effort I have seen yet.

September 30, 2007 10:40 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Interesting to see how loyal the Ron Paul supporters are. Would we real Conservative Republicans capture some of that fervor and use it to get our candidates elected!

At least our candidates actually stand a chance to be elected. Ron Paul is too far out there for Republicans and not far enough for the Democrats. He can't win, but he can sure take votes away from the Republican candidate such as Perot did in the 90's. Perot's entry into the race sealed Clinton's victory.

Do Paul's supporters want Hillary to be president? Do they know how their support for him can bring about a Republican loss? Do they care?

September 30, 2007 11:44 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Good question Mark,

Over at Wordsmith's Blog He has some intersting comments from YouTube over there some are suggesting changing parties from Democrat to Republican just to vote for this nut.

Which will in turn deffinately insure a Victory for Hillary.

I'm glad you pointed this out because maybe they should think of the Consequences of this before this Ron Paul stuff get's to out of hand!

September 30, 2007 12:29 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

"I forgot again, we drafted Fred to run, that's about the most grassroots effort I have seen yet."

You're telling Ron Paul supporters that you have the best grassroots effort? Get about 48,000 more meetup group members, and raise $1 Million in six days, and maybe I'll listen.

"Yet those that dont are affraid to counter those that do for fear of loosing votes."

Are you kidding? We lose votes more votes simply by having truthers.

"you will see that we engage in military interventionism in small deployments all over the world, to great benefit for the U.S. and also for other countries. Contrary to the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky view, we are not propping up dictatorships, but promoting democracies"

You're right. Sometimes, we give food to the starving children and puppies in Africa. We also overthrow democracries (::cough:: Mossadegh, Iran::) and prop up dictatorships, and ally ourselves with Saddam Hussein to go to War against the dictatorship we propped up in the first place. Then, when they pledge to help us with the War on Terror, we label them The Axis of Evil. But hey, policing the world gets it right most of the time! We're at least well-intentioned. I mean, the hundreds of thousands of collateral-damaged Iraqi deaths would've loved democracy!

<< Now that we have worn out the "Why drugs should NOT be legalized arguement" >>

Yes. Because if we legalize marijuana, marijuana use will quadruple or even more. Right. Where'd you get that talking point from? "Reefer Madness"? I suppose the next thing I will hear is "Don't let those crazy negro Jazz Musicians smoke it! Because when they smoke it, they'll go *crazee* and kill white women!" If you research the tactics of Harry Anslinger, that's pretty much how marijuana became illegal, in a nutshell. Do you seriously think it became illegal because a group of doctors got together, had hearings, and decided that a non-lethal substance that's not even physically addictive should be illegal, while cigarettes, which are addictive, and cause 400,000 deaths a year, and alcohol, which causes 100,000 deaths a year, *remains legal?*

"You're right Marie, if drugs are legalized the crime rate will skyrocket and we'll be paying to build more prisons."

What the hell? We're already paying out the ass to put hundreds of thousands of non-violent users charged with minor marijuana possession in jail. And just putting people in jail doesn't exactly solve the problem. One of my favorite policies is where hundreds of thousands of students have been denied financial aid because of a drug charge, while drunken frat-boy assholes get to die of alcohol poisoning, or anyone who's committed almost any other crime is legally allowed to get through college on the taxpayer's money. That's really good for society when you keep productive members away from attending college. Without schooling, you end up making complete pie-in-the-sky fallacies like "If we legalize marijuana, society will descend into criminal anarchy!"

"Think about this, drugs are legal under a Ron Paul Presidency, everyone in the Country would be stoned."

Well, it's clear you didn't "think about that". Alcohol's legal, is everyone drunk?

"The crime rates would sky rocket, and I'm not just talking about stealing I'm talking about Rape, Murder, there would be tens of thousands of accidents, the courts would be tied up in law suits forever."

Oh wow, sounds like what would happen if Alcohol was legal! Oh, wait, it is! It's the All-American, god-given right of masculinity to be a drunken, frat-boy jackass, but if someone's in their room stoned, and filling up on Cheetos, they're a maniac who's a threat to socety!

"There isnt enough room to house prisoners as it is let alone after this mess."

If Marijuana was legal, there would be no need to put hundreds of thousands of people a year in jail for minor posession charges. So, I don't see where you're going with this.

"That wont hold because minors buy alcohol all the time. They will just have someone else purchase it for them."

So let's ban alcohol then! Because clearly it isn't working!

"Me~! What if I am allowed to buy Cocaine or Heroin? I have never touched the stuff before but by it being legal and all I desire to purchase some of that crap, I get hooked, become an addict."

For one thing, Coke and Heroin are actually dangerous. I don't want them legal. Most people don't do coke not because it's illegal, but simply because it's coke, and it's terrible.

"I've woprked with enough potheads in my life to know potheads are dangerous to life and limb."

Ah, yes, the lame collectivism continues. Potheads! The Menace of Society! Turning rule and law into violence and chaos all while somehow being simultaneously plastered to their couches!

"I shouldn't have to worry about being killed or maimed by a pothead or writing up accident reports caused by potheads."

Driving Philosophy of someone drunk: "Alright! the speed limit's 60, I'm going to hit 100! Wooh! Fuck yeah! I'm so drunk! ::crash::

Driving Philosophy of someone who's stoned: "Wow, I hit 20 MPH, this is too intense..."

Which one's more dangerous?

Oh, by the way, you people's beef seems to be with potheads. You know who my beef is with? Dumb, jackass wife-beating fratboy Alcoholics, and all that they bring into the world: drunken driving deaths, child abuse and neglect, divorce, cirrhosis of the liver, rape and sexual assault, enslavement through physical addiction and dependence, destroyed property, drunk driving deaths and injuries, depression, damaged property of innocent business owners, insincerity and phony personalities, rowdy and obnoxious behavior, sour moods, rage, angst, and violence, and a host of other problems caused, instigated, or worsened by alcohol.

I remember a story about hundreds of people getting into a fight around labor day at a beach in Miami. What was the cause of this? Shocker: ALCOHOL!

You know what would've happened if hundreds were stoned?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Ok, I lied. They'll probably leave Doritos and Crispy Creme donuts everywhere, but you get what I'm saying.

I'll give the prohibitionists credit for this that they've actually done a pretty good job at perpetuating a *complete fucking lie* for the past 70 years.

September 30, 2007 12:29 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

Mark,

We want to see Hillary in office about as much as we want to see Thompson in office. That is, very little.

You seem to think that the center prefers Republicans over Democrats. We don't. We're tired of being pushed around by both parties. We dislike both of you equally, and, quite honestly, think you're exactly alike in that you both want bigger government.

We vote for Ron Paul even if he won't win because we vote on principle. And because anyone else can win and it won't matter. The result will be exactly the same.

September 30, 2007 12:42 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

By the way, here's some stats on your "conservative" golden boy's voting record.

September 30, 2007 12:54 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

Are you kidding? We lose votes more votes simply by having truthers.

But Ron Paul is encouraging these nutballs, he keeps writing (If you would read the link above, or watch the YouTube Video when Rudy gave it to him pretty good) for Conspiracy Planet! He is suggesting that we attacked ourselves on 9-11 and Rudy Giuliani called him on it in one of those debates. He is provoking this notion all on his own and encouraging these crackpots!

You're right. Sometimes, we give food to the starving children and puppies in Africa. We also overthrow democracries (::cough:: Mossadegh, Iran::) and prop up dictatorships, and ally ourselves with Saddam Hussein to go to War against the dictatorship we propped up in the first place. Then, when they pledge to help us with the War on Terror, we label them The Axis of Evil. But hey, policing the world gets it right most of the time! We're at least well-intentioned. I mean, the hundreds of thousands of collateral-damaged Iraqi deaths would've loved democracy!


Uh... you can blame 'ol Jimmy Carter for most of that crap.

Name one Country that is actually HELPING in the war on terror that is on the Axis of Evil list.

We didnt set out to police the world, but with all the attacks we endured under the Clinton administration and actually starting back with Carter administration, 9-11 was it!

We arent going to take it anymore.

And all the measures President Bush has put in place has kept us safe for the last 6 years and that's not an accident.

What would Ron Paul have us do? Take away the tools we need to fight the Terrorists that want to destroy America? For Instance "The Patriot Act". How many more 9-11's must we endure? Name one person you know that has been affected by the Patriot Act except for the Terrorists?


Yes. Because if we legalize marijuana, marijuana use will quadruple or even more. Right. Where'd you get that talking point from? "Reefer Madness"? I suppose the next thing I will hear is "Don't let those crazy negro Jazz Musicians smoke it! Because when they smoke it, they'll go *crazee* and kill white women!"

Uh...WTF? lol How did race enter into this picture?


One of my favorite policies is where hundreds of thousands of students have been denied financial aid because of a drug charge, while drunken frat-boy assholes get to die of alcohol poisoning, or anyone who's committed almost any other crime is legally allowed to get through college on the taxpayer's money. That's really good for society when you keep productive members away from attending college. Without schooling, you end up making complete pie-in-the-sky fallacies like "If we legalize marijuana, society will descend into criminal anarchy!"


I dont know of anyone who has been denied access into college because of a Misdemeanor Drug charge and that's all Pot is, a Misdemeanor, Coke or Herioin on the other hand they should have never gotten thier hands dirty to begin with. Remember "Personel Responsibility"?
If those kids were on Coke or Heroin I dont think they would make great productive members of society to begin with.

As far as the taxpayer's dime, Student Loans may be issued to student's but must be paid back when they get a job after college so the money just goes right back into the system. And if they dont pay it back the government garnishes thier wages! So I dont see where you are going with this.



And I'm not quite sure who you are talking to with the rest of that wild statement so I'll save that for whoever you are talking to.

September 30, 2007 1:24 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,




Members of Congress / Fred Thompson / Votes
Date Vote Position GOP opinion DEM opinion

11/19/02 Vote 253: H J RES 124: H.J.Res. 124; A joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. Yes Yes Yes

11/19/02 Vote 252: H R 3210: H.R. 3210 Conference Report ; Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

11/19/02 Vote 251: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3210; Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

11/19/02 Vote 250: On the Nomination: Confirmation Dennis W. Shedd, of South Carolina, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Yes Yes No

11/19/02 Vote 249: H R 5005: H.R. 5005, as amended; Homeland Security Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

11/19/02 Vote 248: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 5005, as amended; Homeland Security Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

11/19/02 Vote 247: H R 5005: Thompson For Gramm Amdt. No. 4901; To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Yes Yes No

11/19/02 Vote 246: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA Re: Thompson Amdt. No. 4901; To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Yes Yes No

11/19/02 Vote 245: H R 5005: Lieberman Amdt. No. 4953; Of a perfecting nature. No No Yes

11/15/02 Vote 244: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Gramm Amdt. No. 4901; To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Yes Yes No

11/14/02 Vote 243: S 1214: Conference Report to Accompany S. 1214; Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

11/13/02 Vote 242: H R 5005: Motion to Table Feingold Amdt. No. 4900; To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2003. Yes Yes Yes

11/13/02 Vote 241: H R 5005: Motion to Table Lieberman Amdt. No. 4471; To provide a substitute. Yes Yes No

11/13/02 Vote 240: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Gramm Amdt. No. 4738 to H.R. 5005, upon reconsideration; To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States. Yes Yes Yes

10/16/02 Vote 239: H R 5010: Conference Report H.R. 5010; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 Yes Yes Yes

10/16/02 Vote 238: H R 3295: H.R. 3295 Conference Report; Help America Vote Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

10/11/02 Vote 237: H J RES 114: H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

10/10/02 Vote 236: S J RES 45: Durbin Amdt. No. 4865; To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq. No No Yes

10/10/02 Vote 235: S J RES 45: Levin Amdt. No. 4862; To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes. No No No

10/10/02 Vote 234: S J RES 45: Byrd Amdt. No. 4868; To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq. No No No

10/10/02 Vote 233: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Lieberman Amdt. No. 4856; In the nature of a substitute. Yes Yes Yes

10/10/02 Vote 232: S J RES 45: Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended; To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension. No No Yes

10/9/02 Vote 231: S J RES 45: Motion to Table Graham Amdt. No. 4857; To provide substitute language that includes an authorization for the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by certain foreign terrorist organizations. Yes Yes Yes

10/3/02 Vote 230: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.J.Res. 45; Further Resolution on Iraq Yes Yes Yes

10/3/02 Vote 229: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report To Accompany H.R. 2215; 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act Yes Yes Yes

10/1/02 Vote 228: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Gramm Amdt. No. 4738; To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States. No No Yes

9/26/02 Vote 227: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Gramm Amdt. No. 4738; To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States. No No Yes

9/26/02 Vote 226: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Lieberman Amdt. No. 4471, Upon Reconsideration.; To provide a substitute. No No Yes

9/25/02 Vote 225: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Lieberman Amdt. No. 4471, as amended; To provide a substitute. No No Yes

9/25/02 Vote 224: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Byrd Amdt. No. 4480; To provide funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for emergency wildfire suppression. No No Yes

9/24/02 Vote 223: H R 5005: Lieberman Amdt. No. 4694; To establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, and for other purposes. Yes Yes Yes

9/24/02 Vote 222: H R 5005: Byrd Amendment No. 4644; To provide for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, an orderly transfer of functions to the Directorates of the Department, and for other purposes. No No Yes

9/23/02 Vote 221: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Byrd Amdt. No. 4480, as amended, upon reconsideration; To provide funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for emergency wildfire suppression. No No Yes

9/23/02 Vote 220: H R 5093: Motion to Table Dodd Amdt. No. 4522; To prohibit the expenditure of funds to recognize Indian tribes and tribal nations until the date of implementation of certain administrative procedures. Yes Yes Yes

9/20/02 Vote 219: On the Nomination: Confirmation Reena Raggi, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Not Voting Yes Yes

9/19/02 Vote 218: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Lieberman Amdt No. 4471; To provide a substitute. No No Yes

9/17/02 Vote 217: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Amdt. No. 4480; To provide funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for emergency wildfire suppression. No No Yes

9/13/02 Vote 216: On the Nomination: Confirmation Arthur J. Schwab, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge Yes Yes Yes

9/12/02 Vote 215: H R 5005: Hollings Amendment No. 4533; To modify the membership and advisors of the National Security Council No No Yes

9/12/02 Vote 214: H R 5005: Motion to Table Thompson Amdt. No. 4513; To strike title II, establishing the National Office for Combating Terrorism, and title III, developing the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security Response for detection, prevention, protection, response, and recover to counter terrorist threats. No No Yes

9/12/02 Vote 213: On the Nomination: Confirmation Timothy J. Corrigan of Florida, to be United States District Judge Yes Yes Yes

9/10/02 Vote 212: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Daschle Amdt No. 4481; To provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers. No Yes Yes

9/9/02 Vote 211: On the Nomination: Confirmation Kenneth H. Marra, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge Yes Yes Yes

9/5/02 Vote 210: H R 5005: Boxer-Smith Amdt. No. 4492, as further modified; To amend title 49, United States Code, to improve flight and cabin security on passenger aircraft. Yes Yes Yes

9/3/02 Vote 209: On the Motion to Proceed: Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 5005; Homeland Security Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

9/3/02 Vote 208: On the Nomination: Confirmation Terrence F. McVerry, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge Yes Yes Yes

8/1/02 Vote 207: H R 3009: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3009; Trade Act of 2002 Yes Yes No

8/1/02 Vote 206: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3009; Trade Act of 2002 Yes Yes No

8/1/02 Vote 204: H R 5010: H.R. 5010, as amended; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 Yes Yes Yes

8/1/02 Vote 205: On the Nomination: Confirmation Henry E. Autry of Missouri, to be U.S. District Judge Yes Yes Yes

8/1/02 Vote 203: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3009; Trade Act of 2002 Yes Yes No

7/31/02 Vote 202: On the Nomination: Confirmation D. Brooks Smith, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Yes Yes No

7/31/02 Vote 201: S 812: S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002 No Yes Yes

7/31/02 Vote 200: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 812; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002 No No Yes

7/31/02 Vote 199: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Graham Amdt. No. 4345; To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide protection for all medicare beneficiaries against the costs of prescription drugs. No No Yes

7/30/02 Vote 198: On the Motion to Proceed: Motion to Proceed to Consider Conference Report on H.R. 3009; Trade Act of 2002 Yes Yes None

7/30/02 Vote 197: S 812: Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 4326; To provide for health care liability reform. Yes No Yes

7/29/02 Vote 196: On the Nomination: Confirmation: John E. Jones III, to be U.S. District Judge Yes Yes Yes

7/29/02 Vote 195: On the Nomination: Confirmation: Joy Flowers Conti, of Pennsylvania, to be U. S. District Judge Yes Yes Yes

7/29/02 Vote 194: On the Nomination: Confirmation: Julia Smith Gibbons, of Tennessee, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Yes Yes Yes

7/26/02 Vote 193: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Julia Smith Gibbons, to be U. S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Yes Yes Yes

7/25/02 Vote 192: H R 3763: H.R. 3763 Conference Report; Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

7/25/02 Vote 191: H R 5121: H.R. 5121, as amended; Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 Yes Yes Yes

7/25/02 Vote 190: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Rockefeller Amdt. No. 4316; To provide temporary State fiscal relief. No Yes Yes

7/24/02 Vote 189: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Hagel Amdt. No. 4315; To provide medicare beneficiaries with a drug discount card that ensures access to affordable outpatient prescription drugs. Yes Yes No

7/24/02 Vote 188: H R 4775: H.R. 4775 Conference Report; 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Yes Yes Yes

7/23/02 Vote 187: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Grassley Amdt. No. 4310; To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a medicare voluntary prescription drug delivery program under the medicare program, to modernize the medicare program, and for other purposes. Yes Yes No

7/23/02 Vote 186: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Graham Amdt. No. 4309; To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the medicare program. No No Yes

7/23/02 Vote 185: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard H. Carmona, to be Surgeon General Yes Yes Yes

7/18/02 Vote 184: On the Nomination: Confirmation: Richard R. Clifton of Hawaii, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Yes Yes Yes

7/18/02 Vote 183: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Richard Clifton, to be U.S. Circuit Judge Yes Yes Yes

7/18/02 Vote 182: S 812: Stabenow Amendment No. 4305, as modified; To clarify that section 1927 of the Social Security Act does not prohibit a State from entering into drug rebate agreements in order to make outpatient prescription drugs accessible and affordable for residents of the State who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under the medicaid program. No No Yes

7/18/02 Vote 181: H R 5011: H.R. 5011, as amended ; Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2003 Yes Yes Yes

7/17/02 Vote 180: S 812: Cochran Amendment No. 4301; To protect the health and safety of Americans. Yes Yes Yes

7/17/02 Vote 179: S 812: Dorgan Amendment No. 4300; Of a perfecting nature. No No Yes

7/17/02 Vote 178: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 812; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

7/15/02 Vote 177: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Lavenski R. Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eigth Circuit Yes Yes Yes

7/15/02 Vote 176: S 2673: S. 2673, as amended; Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

7/15/02 Vote 175: S 2673: Edwards Amdt. No. 4187, as amended; To address rules of professional responsibility for attorneys. Yes Yes Yes

7/15/02 Vote 174: S 2673: Carnahan Amdt. No. 4286; To require timely and public disclosure of transactions involving management and principal stockholders. Yes Yes Yes

7/12/02 Vote 173: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2673; Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

7/11/02 Vote 172: S 2673: Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 4200; To modify attorney practices relating to clients, and for other purposes. Yes No Yes

7/10/02 Vote 171: S 2673: Lott Amdt. No. 4188; To deter fraud and abuse by corporate executives. Yes Yes Yes

7/10/02 Vote 170: S 2673: Biden Amdt. No. 4186, as further modified; To increase criminal penalties relating to conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and certain ERISA violations, and for other purposes. Yes Yes Yes

7/10/02 Vote 169: S 2673: Leahy Amdt. No. 4185; To provide for criminal prosecution of persons who alter or destroy evidence in certain Federal investigations or defraud investors of publicly traded securities, and for other purposes. Yes Yes Yes

7/10/02 Vote 168: S 2673: Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. No. 4175; To provide for certification of financial reports by labor organizations and to improve quality and transparency in financial reporting and independent audits and accounting services for labor organizations. No No Yes

7/9/02 Vote 167: On the Motion to Proceed: Motion to Proceed to Consider S.J. Res. 34; Yucca Mountain bill Yes Yes No

6/27/02 Vote 166: S 2690: S. 2690; Pledge of Allegiance bill Yes Yes Yes

6/27/02 Vote 165: S 2514: S. 2514, as amended; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 Yes Yes Yes

6/27/02 Vote 164: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2514; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 Yes Yes Yes

6/26/02 Vote 163: S RES 292: S. Res. 292; Pledge of Allegiance resolution Yes Yes Yes

6/25/02 Vote 162: S 2514: Motion to Table Kennedy Amdt. No. 3918; To provide for equal competition in contracting. Yes Yes No

6/24/02 Vote 161: S 2514: Smith (NH) Amdt No. 3969; To impose certain prohibitions and requirements relating to the wearing of abayas by members of the Armed Forces in Saudi Arabia. Yes Yes Yes

6/21/02 Vote 160: S 2514: Murray Amdt. No. 3927; To restore a previous policy regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense facilities. No No Yes

6/20/02 Vote 159: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Feingold Amdt. No. 3915, as amended; To extend for 2 years procedures to maintain fiscal accountability and responsibility. No No Yes

6/19/02 Vote 158: S 2514: Levin Amdt. No. 3899, as amended; To reallocate an amount available to the Army for indirect fire programs. Yes Yes Yes

6/18/02 Vote 157: S 2600: S. 2600, as amended; Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes

6/18/02 Vote 156: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2600; Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 No No Yes

6/14/02 Vote 155: S 2600: Harkin Amdt. No. 3838; To provide for satisfaction of judgements from frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and State sponsors of terrorism, and for other purposes. Yes Yes Yes

6/14/02 Vote 154: H R 3275: H.R. 3275, as amended; Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002 Yes Yes Yes




You should know better than to throw out some silly website to a FredHead.

September 30, 2007 1:45 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

So you're voting for someone who sometimes upholds your views. That sounds like... flip-flopping.

Well, whatever. I'm voting for someone who always upholds my views. (98% of the time anyway.) Which is more rational I wonder?

Nice name for your boy's groupies though. We don't have those. We just call ourselves Ron Paul supporters. We don't really see the need for silly names. But whatever floats your boat, I guess...

September 30, 2007 2:03 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

Oh come now!

I have been lead to believe on this post that there are two goups of you people, "Truthers" and General supporters. But when someone writes for a rag like Conspiracy Planet I think it's gone far enough with this guy.

You dont care if you waste a vote?

I guess you dont consider the fact that Liberals will be opening your billfold and digging through it for money, a cause for concern?

The person who serves the Country's interest's better than the other alternative is who get's the votes. Throwing them away is such a waste.

September 30, 2007 2:40 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

I do not plan on wasting a vote. I plan on voting for principle. It's a sad thing when Americans are condemned for voting for who they honestly believe will better the country. I was under the impression that that's what we were supposed to do.

I find the fact that liberals will be digging through my billfold extremely disconcerting, as much so as the fact that conservatives, if elected, will be digging through my private phone records. You don't seem to understand that many Americans do not distinguish between the two parties. They both want big government. What does it matter if the government takes my money or my civil rights? Both are just as much of an infringement.

September 30, 2007 2:49 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

Throwing a vote away is exactly what you will be doing if you dont vote for the most conservative (That can win) candidate if you are a true conservative.

Someone who has far fetched notions about this Country attacking itself or recieving punishment for past actions has to be gone upstairs.

Truthfully, in all Honesty, what will affect you more... The Terrorist Surveilance Program or having your wallet rifled through?

Unless you are calling Al-Qaeda, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY!!

September 30, 2007 2:56 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

"But Ron Paul is encouraging these nutballs, he keeps writing for Conspiracy Planet!"

Uh, Conspiracy Planet is providing links for Ron Paul's Weekly Congressional Newsletter. So... the nutballs are associating with him, not the other way around, nice try though.

"If you would read the link above, or watch the YouTube Video when Rudy gave it to him pretty good"

Ah yes, I loved that video. That's pretty much where Ron Paul's campaign took off. We pretty much owe everything to Giuliani's 9/11 drama-queening. Can't wait 'till the NYPD and the Fire Department give it to Giuliani pretty good.

"He is suggesting that we attacked ourselves on 9-11 and Rudy Giuliani called him on it in one of those debates. He is provoking this notion all on his own and encouraging these crackpots!"

It's kind of a half truth that Ron Paul is provoking that discussion. See, Ron Paul is asking us to consult history, to consult the CIA, to consult the 9/11 Report, He's not trying to justify the attacks, or blame America, or make any judgement on America. Instead, he's saying that we should causally analyze our well-intentioned foreign policy over the past fifty years, and realize that sometimes, there's some unintended consequences. Of course, this is a difficult idea to accept, plus, it's very easy to just misinterpret it and go "OMG! Ron Paul Blames America for September 11TH!!!1" So yes, by putting out a more indepth analysis on foreign policy into a public that thrives on emotionally-laden 30-second soundbytes, Ron Paul must be guilty by provoking conspiracy theorists. By the way, Ron Paul was quoting the CIA, the 9/11 Commissions report, and Michael Schueur, the CIA guy incharge of taking out Bin Laden, so technically, your beef is with them being the ones "blaming America first". Don't shoot the messanger.


"Uh... you can blame 'ol Jimmy Carter for most of that crap."

I can blame Jimmy Carter for the CIA overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh, a democratically elected leader in Iran, in 1953? I can blame Jimmy Carter for the CIA installing the Shah in the '50s? I can blame Jimmy Carter for the CIA training the SAVAK, the Iranian Secret Police that made the Gestapo look nice? I can blame Jimmy Carter for the US providing Saddam Hussein with weapons against Iran in the attrocious Iran-Iraq war that happened *after* Jimmy Carter's administration? This is the problem with America. We have all the time in the world to be patriotic and bomb Iran, but we don't have the time to read up on the history of Iran, or hell, even know where it is on a map!

"Name one Country that is actually HELPING in the war on terror that is on the Axis of Evil list."

Even Mike Huckabee has publicly stated that Iran was willing to help us take out Al Qaeda in 2001. Then we decided to label them as the Axis of Evil, and it went downhill from there.

<< What would Ron Paul have us do? Take away the tools we need to fight the Terrorists that want to destroy America? >>

If Congress would've listened to him when he proposed bringing back the Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, allowing bounty hunters to go after OBL and al Qaeda, we would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of soldiers' lives. Jimmy Carter most definately fucked up rescuing the hostages, but during the same time, Ross Perot used private contractors to rescue the guys he had in Iran, and pulled it off more successfully... So in a nutshell, Ron Paul would have gone after al Qaeda, the people responsible for 9/11, not Iraq.


<< I dont know of anyone who has been denied access into college because of a Misdemeanor Drug charge and that's all Pot is >>

Haha! Well, read the link below; now you know.

http://www.ssdp.org/campaigns/hea/talking-points.shtml

<< Coke or Herioin on the other hand they should have never gotten thier hands dirty to begin with. Remember "Personel Responsibility"?
If those kids were on Coke or Heroin I dont think they would make great productive members of society to begin with. >>

I'm just talking about penalties for Marijuana Possession; I too believe that coke and heroin shouldn't ever see the light of day.

<< And I'm not quite sure who you are talking to with the rest of that wild statement so I'll save that for whoever you are talking to. >>

We allow lethal, physically addictive drugs to be on the market, but you're ok with jailing people who use a physically non-addictive drug that has killed *ZERO* people. Is that the wild statement you were referring to?

September 30, 2007 3:29 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

Here's the thing Marie, I'm not a "true conservative." I'm a libertarian. But, come to think of it, I can't figure out why "true conservatives" wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. He wants to lower taxes, allow more guns, get out of the UN, he's anti-abortion. He was a close Reagan associate. He's running on what G.W. Bush ran on in 2000, non-intervention. Did you actor friend do all that? Or was he too busy in makeup?

Anyway, why shouldn't I worry about my phone's being tapped by the federal government? Since when did conservatives support Big Brother?

Here's the problem with your argument. You have every right to release your phone records to the CIA or whatever ineffective agency invades our privacy. You do not, however, have a right to release mine to them. And you really support the government spying on its own people?

The "Patriot" Act or the 4th Amendment? Make a decision, because you can't have both. As for me, I know what I'm going with.

September 30, 2007 3:36 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

The reason why conservatives don't get behind arpee is
1: he is not a conservative
2: Conservatives want to reduce the scope and size of the government and the fact that arpee is a fake and a loser and cannot possibly win there is no way of doing that standing behind such a losing cause.
3: arpee does not speak for me neither do the libertarians speak for me. We demand use your own name and quit trying to hijack the conservative name because you are not conservatives so stop saying that arpee is a conservative when he is not.
4: The military is the backbone of us being able to keep our monetary and trade options open. If we need to go to war to keep those options open to us that's what we have always done and will continue to do, we don't want arpees or lefties to make us weak and vunerable as they would obviously would.

Lastly when we are at war we must be able to find the plots and plans the enemy will use against us in order for them to prevail. If you do not not want us to be Victorious you keep mounting your opposition to the remedies we must use to uncover these plots. arpee and his followers are nothing but obstructionists just like the lefties and I consider you to be doing nothing less than to be giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

September 30, 2007 5:37 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

You know, you're right, he's not a conservative. He would be if this were 1980, but it's 2007, so you're right, he's not.

I wonder if you would consider Ronald Reagan a conservative.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

By the way, Ron Paul was an early Ronald Reagan supporter, not so with that balding actor of yours.

And if you guys really want to lower the size of the government, why do you not support someone who wants to get rid of the IRS, lower taxes, and get us out of the UN? And why do you support someone who wants to tap your phones, and take your guns? Odd that.

September 30, 2007 6:04 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 30, 2007 6:28 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

As you might know, marie, I do a lot of paperfolding. The WTC $20 trick isn't difficult; just morbid. I refuse to fold it for people, and express no interest in it, when people bring it up to me, as an origamist.

RP said the following in your Dvorak article:

"A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways," a comment guaranteeing political oblivion for anyone serious about reaching the White House.

That is one of the most outrageous and idiotic comparative analogizing I've ever read! Apples and oranges.

How does it look if I point out that "a lot fewer American soldiers have died in Iraq than have died in less than a month on a U.S. highway"?

Highways don't have malicious intent when people die on them; the twin towers being brought down did have malicious, evil intent behind them.

More people die from swimming pools in the backyard than they do from guns in the home. I might say that the homicide rate in Philadelphia is matching the death rate of our soldiers in Iraq.

From 1993 thru '96, 4,417 military deaths occurred under President Clinton. But it's somewhat meaningless to compare that to the number of military deaths under Bush, other than the fact that the anti-war crowd has made body counts into such an emotional issue.

marie,

That Dvorak description of the RP event, reminds me of a comment I left in an old RP post of mine at FA:

I now know what many of the "pumped up" "passionate" Ron Paul supporters remind me of: Amway salesmen. I had a roommate who fell into this pyramid scheme, and it was weird. I can just picture a roomful of Ronulans at a RP infomercial clapping their hands as if they were at a religious revival or dancing on top of their chairs as if it were a Tony Robbins seminar.

There really is something "cult-like" in the following of RP.

September 30, 2007 6:32 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

We also overthrow democracries (::cough:: Mossadegh, Iran::) and prop up dictatorships,

Paul,

We were led to believe, by British intell, that Mossadegh was turning toward the communists.

Carter can be held to account for the collapse of the Shah, who was deeply pro-American, thereby allowing a worst regime to replace a "bad" dictator. And because of the legacy of that decision, we find ourselves in a dangerous conflict with a theocratic Iran, and state sponsor of Islamic terror.

It's also due to Carter's ineptitude in "good" interventionism rather than "bad" interventionism (pressuring the Shah to do nothing, to quell the uprising and sanctimoniously demanding more human rights of our allies) that made us choose sides in this:

and ally ourselves with Saddam Hussein to go to War against the dictatorship we propped up in the first place.

Wrong. We did not go against "the dictatorship we propped up", but rather had to face down the Khomeinites who replaced our "puppet" dictator. And do you know why we had to choose sides with Saddam? Because the Khomeini-led Iran sided with the Soviets.

Then, when they pledge to help us with the War on Terror, we label them The Axis of Evil.

Iran pledged to help us in the "war on terror"? How exactly did you fall for that one?

But hey, policing the world gets it right most of the time! We're at least well-intentioned. I mean, the hundreds of thousands of collateral-damaged Iraqi deaths would've loved democracy!

Obviously, you need to pick up Kaplan's books and burn your Howard Zinn high school text.

September 30, 2007 6:45 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

as the fact that conservatives, if elected, will be digging through my private phone records.

Robert M....what are you afraid of?! The whole data mining thing, is about tracing links between al-Qaeda/terrorist communications; not about tracking how many times you are calling up 1 800 fone sex.

Here are just some of the plots that have been made known to the public, thanks to the NSA surveillance programs:

1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.

2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

4. The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport [outside London] using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.

7. The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the U.K.

8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

September 30, 2007 7:02 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Here's the thing Marie, I'm not a "true conservative." I'm a libertarian. But, come to think of it, I can't figure out why "true conservatives" wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

I've always considered libertarians to be nothing more than disgruntled 3rd party conservatives.

Robert, I forgot to link to my source, and after reading your subsequent post about the 4th amendment and Big Brother and wire-tapping, I think you should go through Curt's entire post. It's a good read, even if by the end of it, you still disagree.

Dialogue and debate can be positive and constructive, even if on occasion we take swipes at one another and throw out an insult or two.

September 30, 2007 7:09 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

Wow. Only a conservative would spell "phone," f-o-n-e.

Incidentally, I didn't even know phone-sex lines were 800 numbers. I'm not into that stuff. Sorry to disappoint you.

More to the point, however, you claim to be for reducing the size of government, and yet you want to give the government the power to tap private citizens' phones. (Yes, with a ph!)

That sounds a little inconsistent to me. Which is why you and the Democrats and all your bickering is so funny to the rest of us. We know you're all the same, all want big government, but you hate each other so much. It's richly ironic.

By the way, those terror plots wouldn't have even been planned if the US had stayed out of Iraq, and stopped world policing. I guess you prefer invasion of countries and phone taps to the 1980s conservatism of non-intervention and small government. Reagan would be ashamed of you my friend, despite how much you all love to invoke his name.

September 30, 2007 7:13 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

I didn't see anything new at that site by the way. Still misses the point that those terror attacks the NSA "saved" us from would have been avoided anyway, without the "need" for domestic spying if we'd keep our nose out of other countries' business.

September 30, 2007 7:16 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 30, 2007 7:40 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Wow. Only a conservative would spell "phone," f-o-n-e.

Incidentally, I didn't even know phone-sex lines were 800 numbers. I'm not into that stuff. Sorry to disappoint you.


Sorry, buddy. I thought you might have a sense of humor. Guess, I can be wrong, sometimes.

"phone sex" is 8 letters. Hence "Fone sex". Sheesh. Touchy, touchy.


More to the point, however, you claim to be for reducing the size of government,

I do, but where have I said so in this thread? Keep your conservatives straight, please.

and yet you want to give the government the power to tap private citizens' phones. (Yes, with a ph!)

Thank u 4 the speling leson.

No: What I want is to give the government the power to foil terrorist plots aimed at killing my fellow citizens (just looking out for you, bub).

You love citing Reagan, but did Reagan reduce the size of government?


That sounds a little inconsistent to me. Which is why you and the Democrats and all your bickering is so funny to the rest of us.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....HAHA....







Ha.....



.......meh.

We know you're all the same, all want big government, but you hate each other so much. It's richly ironic.

The fact that no one has been able to successfully reduce the size of government, doesn't mean that conservatives within the Republican Party wouldn't like for that to have happen.

By the way, those terror plots wouldn't have even been planned if the US had stayed out of Iraq,

Yes, because we were in Iraq when 9/11 happened. Right?


and stopped world policing.

It's not American foreign policy that's the problem, sunshine.

I guess you prefer invasion of countries and phone taps to the 1980s conservatism of non-intervention and small government.

What 1980's conservatism of non-interventionism are you talking about?

The U.S. has been intervening for a very long, long time.

Reagan would be ashamed of you my friend, despite how much you all love to invoke his name.

Now that just takes the cake.

It's you RP fanboys who keep dredging up Reagan from the grave.

So Reagan talks to you in your sleep, does he? Does he tell you how he is getting dizzy from spinning in his grave each time you claim ownership over him?

I didn't see anything new at that site by the way.

Thanks for checking out the link.

Still misses the point that those terror attacks the NSA "saved" us from would have been avoided anyway, without the "need" for domestic spying if we'd keep our nose out of other countries' business.

Fine, let's take our marching orders from Tehran and Islamic militants, from hereon out. I hear they wish to create an Islamic super-state as a launching pad for a new world-dominating caliphate. It'd be far easier to achieve that if America would just crawl into its shell and quit sabotaging their efforts.

September 30, 2007 7:45 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

Uh, Conspiracy Planet is providing links for Ron Paul's Weekly Congressional Newsletter. So... the nutballs are associating with him, not the other way around, nice try though.


Oh NO you dont!

With those people handing out the fake 1$ dollar bills with Cheney's face where Washington's should be and 9-11 Truth up in the Corner at Ron Paul event's with Ron Paul there and present proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is approving of this insanity, allows it to take place at his events, and obviously believes this crap himself or he wouldnt have gotten torn a "New One" by Giuliani in one of those debates!

Ah yes, I loved that video. That's pretty much where Ron Paul's campaign took off. We pretty much owe everything to Giuliani's 9/11 drama-queening. Can't wait 'till the NYPD and the Fire Department give it to Giuliani pretty good.

See now your getting goofy!


It's kind of a half truth that Ron Paul is provoking that discussion. See, Ron Paul is asking us to consult history, to consult the CIA, to consult the 9/11 Report, He's not trying to justify the attacks, or blame America, or make any judgement on America. Instead, he's saying that we should causally analyze our well-intentioned foreign policy over the past fifty years, and realize that sometimes, there's some unintended consequences.

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul want's to do away with the CIA and the FBI.

I'm glad Wordsmith already answered the rest of what all you said.

Face it, Ron Paul is condoning these "Truther" people, feeding into this conspiracy theory crap, and will probably pick Dennis Kucinich as his running mate!

September 30, 2007 8:13 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

Here's the thing Marie, I'm not a "true conservative." I'm a libertarian. But, come to think of it, I can't figure out why "true conservatives" wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. He wants to lower taxes, allow more guns, get out of the UN, he's anti-abortion. He was a close Reagan associate. He's running on what G.W. Bush ran on in 2000, non-intervention. Did you actor friend do all that? Or was he too busy in makeup?


All that is fine and dandy, it's when he starts getting going on pulling out of Iraq this instant and snatching Victory from the Jaws of our Troops and this Country, and then blameing this Country for all sins known to man that I have a HUGE problem!

September 30, 2007 8:21 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

That sounds a little inconsistent to me. Which is why you and the Democrats and all your bickering is so funny to the rest of us.

Oh Brother!

September 30, 2007 8:23 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Nice gathering of fact's Word :-)

September 30, 2007 8:29 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Like I told most of my friends here before. I was doing that libertarian/black helicopter thing back in the 80's. I even thought arpee was one of the good guys when he told the truth about being a libertarian and had nothing but contempt for conservatives.

Later I found out that space ships aren't communicating with high level government officials, haarp antennas are used for cell phones and arpee is still repeating the same tired lines. He is basically a tired out washed up politician looking for a way out and has found it by soaking contributors and still repeating the same crap I heard from him 20 years ago. Maybe he meant some of those things back then but now he is only interested in the money. Face it you arpees, you're duping yourselves. Arpee has no intention of winning,he has no chance of winning and he has no desire to win, he just wants your money because he's old and tired and wants out. You need a new cardboard figure to prop up, that one is worn out and no one wants to hear his bulls--t anymore.

October 01, 2007 6:44 AM  
Anonymous Paul said...

"We were led to believe, by British intell, that Mossadegh was turning toward the communists."

Just like all of Southeast Asia and Australia fell to the Communists since we didn't win Vietnam. And McCarthy was a true patriot.

"Carter can be held to account for the collapse of the Shah, who was deeply pro-American, thereby allowing a worst regime to replace a "bad" dictator. And because of the legacy of that decision, we find ourselves in a dangerous conflict with a theocratic Iran, and state sponsor of Islamic terror."

Well then, I guess I'll add Carter to the list. I'm not trying to leave Democrats off the list, or anything.

"And do you know why we had to choose sides with Saddam? Because the Khomeini-led Iran sided with the Soviets."

So if North Korea goes to war with us, I guess we should get get into an alliance with Myanmar as fast as possible then? Because obviously the lesser of two evils is better? I'm sure the Iranian citizens understood our Cold War Machiavellian justifications for meddling with their country, and were just fine with it.

<< Iran pledged to help us in the "war on terror"? How exactly did you fall for that one? >>

I wouldn't know, that's why I quoted Mike "Honor" Huckabee.

<< Obviously, you need to pick up Kaplan's books and burn your Howard Zinn high school text. >>

I'm not disputing Kaplan's books, I'm sure there's plenty of good we in the first place, along with us getting too big with our britches sometimes as well. Burn my Howard Zinn textbook? You think I actually learned about Mossadegh in the United States Public Skool system?

<< Uh, Conspiracy Planet is providing links for Ron Paul's Weekly Congressional Newsletter.

Oh NO you dont! >>

Well, actually, I kinda sorta did.

<< With those people handing out the fake 1$ dollar bills with Cheney's face where Washington's should be and 9-11 Truth up in the Corner at Ron Paul event's with Ron Paul there and present proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is approving of this insanity >>

First off, which event are you referring to? Second off, is Ron Paul or his campaign staff handing out those $1 bills? No.
Ron Paul's rallies have gotten so big lately that he hasn't been able to filter out all the truthers. So I guess I'll blame him for not having enough bouncers to take care of the truthers? And last but not least, that is *still* truthers associating with him, not the other way around.

Beyond that though, he has publicly stated numerous times that he believes 19 hijackers caused 9/11, and the campaign has publicly denounced the 1 or 2 truthers that were on that boat in Michigan.

<< Ah yes, I loved that video. That's pretty much where Ron Paul's campaign took off. We pretty much owe everything to Giuliani's 9/11 drama-queening. Can't wait 'till the NYPD and the Fire Department give it to Giuliani pretty good.

See now your getting goofy! >>

How am I getting goofy, exactly? What in that paragraph is disputable, exactly?

<< It's kind of a half truth that Ron Paul is provoking that discussion. See, Ron Paul is asking us to consult history, to consult the CIA, to consult the 9/11 Report, He's not trying to justify the attacks, or blame America, or make any judgement on America. Instead, he's saying that we should causally analyze our well-intentioned foreign policy over the past fifty years, and realize that sometimes, there's some unintended consequences.

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul want's to do away with the CIA and the FBI. >>

What did that response have to do with anything I said at all?

<< I'm glad Wordsmith already answered the rest of what all you said. >>

And I'm glad both of us know the history of the Middle East, since you apparently don't.

<< Like I told most of my friends here before. I was doing that libertarian/black helicopter thing back in the 80's. >>

I don't believe in black helicoptors... What are you talking about, exactly? Can you people stop lumping 95 "arpee" supporters with the 5 nutty ones?

<< Face it you arpees, you're duping yourselves. Arpee has no intention of winning,he has no chance of winning and he has no desire to win, he just wants your money because he's old and tired and wants out. >>

Ah, this represents every Ron Paul hitpiece pretty much: Nothing of any real substance to say, just a desparate, rotten waging of psychologial warfare, hoping to demoralize us, hoping we'll go away... but until we stop raising money like crazy, we won't be going anywhere.

Oh, and no rebuttals to the War on Famili- er, Drugs?

October 01, 2007 10:10 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Paul,

I know the first half of your statement was directed at Wordsmith, I call him Word for short.

It is confusing to read what you write when one part is directed toward me and another at someone else, I wish you would differentiate us all lol



First off, which event are you referring to? Second off, is Ron Paul or his campaign staff handing out those $1 bills? No.
Ron Paul's rallies have gotten so big lately that he hasn't been able to filter out all the truthers. So I guess I'll blame him for not having enough bouncers to take care of the truthers? And last but not least, that is *still* truthers associating with him, not the other way around.




Every Event! That is happening at ALL Ron Paul event's.

Oh C'mon he doesnt know what's going on at his own rallies?

You know he does, and he is approving of this nonsense!

With the dough you guy's claim he's raking in you would think Ron could afford someone to find out what is happening, he knows, he either doesnt care or approves of them.

You cant say the "Truthers" are attached to him, well yes you can but then you have to ask yourself WHY?


Beyond that though, he has publicly stated numerous times that he believes 19 hijackers caused 9/11, and the campaign has publicly denounced the 1 or 2 truthers that were on that boat in Michigan.

He said it right at the debate!

And Rudy clobbered him for it.


And I'm glad both of us know the history of the Middle East, since you apparently don't.

LOL! Why do you think I said you can blame 'ol Jimmy Carter for most of that nonsense?



Now you went on to whom you would refer to as J_G, whom I call Jenn.

Get us all straight would ya? lol

October 01, 2007 11:32 AM  
Blogger Phil said...

Hi Marie,

I only got this one comment to make and it is plain and simple to the point.

The Ron Paul people are crazy nut cases always have been always will be.

Libertarians are as goofy & retarded as the Liberals are.

October 01, 2007 12:00 PM  
Blogger Phil said...

Oh specially for you idiot Libertarians who support Ron Paul, if he ever comes around here where I live he is going to get dunked in the river where the Alligators are swimming amongst him. LOL

October 01, 2007 12:03 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Just like all of Southeast Asia and Australia fell to the Communists since we didn't win Vietnam.

No. We lost Vietnam, and our honor, thanks to Congress, for not keeping the written pledge of Richard Nixon to provide support to South Vietnam, should the North Vietnamese not honor the agreement to not invade the South. And what happened next? Laos? Cambodia? Was there more suffering or less, because of our withdrawal from Vietnam?

The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN countries of the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, stayed free because of our engagement in Vietnam. We were practicing a policy of containment and INTERVENTIONISM (or I suppose we should have also allowed Tiawan to fall into the hands of communist China...withdrawn troops from Japan and allowed that to go next? Afterall, China has quite the grudge against the Japanese).

The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam.

Without our commitment to fight Communism wherever it reared its head, Communism would have spread all the way to the Malacca Straits, south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that fought the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. We were being probed and tested everywhere by the Soviets and the threat of the spread of international communism was very real.



Well then, I guess I'll add Carter to the list. I'm not trying to leave Democrats off the list, or anything.


There's good interventionism and there's bad interventionism and good non-interventionism and bad non-interventionism.

You Ron Paul supporters would have us practice 100% non-interventionism. If Ron Paul had been President during the 50's and/or 60's, with a Congress his way, we definitely would be fighting at our water's edge today.


So if North Korea goes to war with us, I guess we should get get into an alliance with Myanmar as fast as possible then? Because obviously the lesser of two evils is better?


No. If North Korea went to war with Burma, IF we were to take sides, we would ally ourselves with Burma, which poses no threat to the U.S.

Your analogy is flawed. A more accurate comparative question would have been to ask me, "So if Nazi Germany went to war with Czechoslavakia, we should ally ourselves with the Czechs?" And I would answer, "Yes, we should have."

I'm sure the Iranian citizens understood our Cold War Machiavellian justifications for meddling with their country, and were just fine with it.

I'm sure they are happy we did not intervene and prevent the overthrow of the Shah. I hear they are real happy living under a repressive theocratic regime that has stripped away the womens' rights that the Shah was liberal on. I hear the youth are very anti-American and anti-democracy. Yup. I hear these things. [/sarcasm]




I'm not disputing Kaplan's books, I'm sure there's plenty of good we in the first place, along with us getting too big with our britches sometimes as well. Burn my Howard Zinn textbook? You think I actually learned about Mossadegh in the United States Public Skool system?


No. I was just being an ass and taking a cheap shot.


Oh, and no rebuttals to the War on Famili- er, Drugs?


Who was that directed toward?

I've said nothing about my opinions on "the drug war" here. Although if you scroll down to a previous thread, you can see where I might stand on the issue.

October 01, 2007 12:24 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I wrote:

Your analogy is flawed. A more accurate comparative question would have been to ask me, "So if Nazi Germany went to war with Czechoslavakia, we should ally ourselves with the Czechs?" And I would answer, "Yes, we should have."

I didn't really complete that train of thought. I should have said Russia, not the Czechs, since it's the Soviets who would later become our future adversary.

So yes, at the time, aligning with Stalin against Hitler, was a good thing.

Friendships and alliances aren't permanent, but are of convenience at the time.

October 01, 2007 12:29 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I find it frustrating that people have such purist mindsets, that if a country doesn't live up to our standards and expectations on human rights, we should never find ourselves in alliances, to choose the lesser of two evils, in order to defeat the greater threat to the world, at the time.

At one time in history, we were at war with Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Do we maintain old grudges, and dissolve our friendships with them today? So conversely, because we partnered with Stalin at one time, Saddam at another, we're to blame for the direction they chose for themselves, after our alliance of convenience?

October 01, 2007 1:09 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

And it's not like we are the only Country to ever have an alliance of convienience.

So they cant just continue to blame America.

October 01, 2007 1:48 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

I'm not going to take the time to go point-by-point, especcilly the points that consist of "hahahaha (ad infinitum)" and no *actual* argument.

Seems to me like your main point is you're afraid of terrorists, so you'll let the government step on my rights to "protect" you.

Well that's nice. I really appreciate you "looking out for me," but, funny thing, I never asked you to. I look out for myself. That's why I've got guns. What I don't appreciate is you deciding my rights are null and void. You keep to yourself, and I'll keep to myself. Just don't tell me you can tap my phone to protect me, 'cause I never asked you to protect me. Some protection, holding a gun to my head so someone else won't pull the trigger.

And here's an interesting point. You don't like the idea of terrorists taking freedoms, but you're okay with Bush taking them. That's interesting. What d'you figure? Better our own government oppress us than Mohammad?

Or is your idea that since terrorists "hate us for our freedoms," you'll take all our freedoms and they won't hate us anymore? Hey, brilliant!

Of course, you're still missing the point that 9/11 was caused because of our idiotic foreign policy. When Reagan meddled in the middle east, our embassy got bombed, and Reagan pulled out, and guess what? Lebanon didn't bomb us again. Ever. When we put bases in Saudi Arabia, however, and remember, Osama's a Saudi, we were. We don't need to be in that area, any more than we need to be in Africa or anywhere else.

That's what conservatives used to stand for, but since they have blind allegiance to their great leader, they wouldn't admit otherwise, even to the point of conveniently forgetting that G.W. Bush was elected on the platform of humble foreign policy and non-intervention.

Orwellian, really, isn't it? Ah, but never mind. Nationalistic fervor and the group dynamic ever was the entertainment of a certain group of people, we're just seeing the pattern repeat once again.

October 01, 2007 2:01 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Robert M,

Seems to me like your main point is you're afraid of terrorists, so you'll let the government step on my rights to "protect" you.

Well that's nice. I really appreciate you "looking out for me," but, funny thing, I never asked you to. I look out for myself. That's why I've got guns. What I don't appreciate is you deciding my rights are null and void. You keep to yourself, and I'll keep to myself. Just don't tell me you can tap my phone to protect me, 'cause I never asked you to protect me. Some protection, holding a gun to my head so someone else won't pull the trigger.


Have you ever stopped to think we might be the ones who need protection from you?

You're just along for the ride on this, your ass is getting protected whether you like it or not. There is a big difference in being "Scared" of terrorists and being "Pissed" that 9-11 was ever allowed to happen to begin with. And making damn good and sure not another one ever happens again. After Jimmy Ficken Carter and Bill Fricken Clinton it's a wonder we even have a Military left!


And here's an interesting point. You don't like the idea of terrorists taking freedoms, but you're okay with Bush taking them. That's interesting. What d'you figure? Better our own government oppress us than Mohammad?

If President Bush has taken any freedoms from me I'm none the wiser. My life just goes on and is uninterupted, but I bet the terrorists are having a miserable time :-)

October 01, 2007 2:18 PM  
Blogger Robert M. said...

Have you ever stopped to think we might be the ones who need protection from you?

Because I might be a terrorist? Right.

I'll tell you who I need protection from, the federal government. Because when a terrorist attacks, the world condemns him. When a government takes rights, it is applauded loudly. Which is more dangerous to a civilized society.

You can find a way to protect yourself, but you don't have the right to infringe on me to do it.

You're just along for the ride on this, your ass is getting protected whether you like it or not.

Yeah? So you're protecting me by holding me hostage? Gee, I'm so grateful. But what if I don't want protection? What if I just want to be left alone? What's it to you if a terrorist kills me? It's my business, not yours. Your business is yourself.

When the Democrats "help" the poor, by stealing from the rich, you hate it, and should. But when the government "protects" by stealing rights, it's okay with you. That's a huge double-standard don't you think?

If President Bush has taken any freedoms from me I'm none the wiser.

"Ignorance is Strength" huh? When I said Orwellian I seem to have been 100% correct.

Fine, let Bush tap your phones. I don't care. But, again, you don't have the right to tap mine. Once you understand that, we're in agreement. Until then, you're "protecting" someone against his will, which brings us to a second Orwellian point.

"Freedom is Slavery" You aim to protect my freedom by taking it. And why? Because, "war is peace."

Thanks, but we're well past 1984, and I'd rather live in a free country than a "safe" one.

October 01, 2007 3:04 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I feel like I am slamming my head against a wall with you people!

Go ahead, vote for the Lunatic loser!

I thought in this debate we could honestly find out what was really up with Ron Paul supporters. I was wrong.

You people have no interest in Protecting America.

You Ron Paul supporters believe Ron Paul is the Savior of the Constitution come hell or high water. Not giving a rats ass what happens to us.

Just pipe down, whether you all like it or not you will be protected with or without your cooperation! Because we are out to Protect AMERICA! Period! Whether you Morons like it or not!

October 01, 2007 8:45 PM  
Blogger Phil said...

Hi Marie,

In all of Robert M's rants all he keeps saying is Me Me Me Me Me he cares not at all about the United States he only cares about his rights but not others rights or Life.

Robert M. keeps blathering on about his rights yet he has been denying just what rights he has lost.

If Robert M. isn't plotting to blow something up Robert M. shouldn't be so concerned about it Robert, although maybe you are a Terrorist like you said to Marie, maybe you just are worried that the Government might actually catch you because your phone being tapped huh? You know squat about what and how that works as far as them monitoring calls to Islamic Countries so stop making up your perpetual lies. If the Government was or has been monitoring your Phone calls why don't you call the ACLU and complain about it. I'll tell you why because you have no evidence of that, your just a big liar.

Marie what a total jackass Robert M. Is. He totally don't give a shit about anyone but himself.

People like this don't deserve a country like the United States to live in maybe they should just all pack up and leave this country. The sooner the better.

October 01, 2007 9:53 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I'm not going to take the time to go point-by-point, especcilly the points that consist of "hahahaha (ad infinitum)" and no *actual* argument.

Don't embarrass yourself like that. Just address the points you want to address and don't make lame excuses for skipping what you can't answer, or what you don't feel you have the time to answer.

The laughter was well-deserved. What point were you making there? Just a self-pleasuring insult. I didn't want you to feel like you were the only one laughing, so I thought I'd laugh at you. Don't be so grouchy. You didn't even have the courtesy to apologize for your inability to understand why "fone" instead of "phone". But then, there's quite a bit that you seem to mis-comprehend. So why should I be surprised any longer?



Seems to me like your main point is you're afraid of terrorists, so you'll let the government step on my rights to "protect" you.


Either that or you're paranoid that the government is stepping all over your rights.

Quit living in paranoia and fear. The government isn't spying upon you, unless you're communicating with al-Qaeda operatives. They don't care about "Robert M." the proud citizen. They care about Jihad Joe plotting against his country.


Well that's nice. I really appreciate you "looking out for me," but, funny thing, I never asked you to. I look out for myself. That's why I've got guns. What I don't appreciate is you deciding my rights are null and void. You keep to yourself, and I'll keep to myself. Just don't tell me you can tap my phone to protect me, 'cause I never asked you to protect me. Some protection, holding a gun to my head so someone else won't pull the trigger.

You're delusional. But thanks for giving me a peek into how your brain operates.

Historically, President Bush is far from doing anything unprecedented in oppressing your civil rights.

If you want to see real abuses, check out Geoffrey R. Stone's "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."


And here's an interesting point. You don't like the idea of terrorists taking freedoms, but you're okay with Bush taking them. That's interesting. What d'you figure? Better our own government oppress us than Mohammad?

Are you ever paranoid that police officers will abuse their authority? Maybe taser you? I'm sure that happens far more frequently than any abuses under the Patriot Act or the NSA Surveillance programs; yet people seem comfortable and not paranoid about law enforcement in general, that they are there to protect you and not abuse their power over you.

Please tell me how President Bush is depriving you of your freedoms? How is our government "oppressing" you?

These stats are 2 years old, but still relevant:

Civil rights complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general:

7,136

Number of those deemed related to the Patriot Act:

1

"Sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject:

155

Roving wiretaps:

49

Personal records seizures under Section 215 of the act:

35

Source: Justice Department inspector general



The federal government, btw, has significantly fewer instances of wiretapping than state and local.

I say your paranoia is just that: paranoia.


Or is your idea that since terrorists "hate us for our freedoms," you'll take all our freedoms and they won't hate us anymore? Hey, brilliant!

You love strawman arguments, don't you? Set 'em up, blow 'em down.

Do you deny that there is a terrorist problem? Do you deny that there are Islamic terrorists hell-bent upon attacking us? And you want to use outdated laws to deal with 21st century technology in protecting America? What freedoms are you going to have then?

Do you lock your doors and windows at home? Why? What are the chances of your house being burglarized? And yet you still lock your doors? Have an alarm and guns in the home? Are you going to let robbers dictate how you live your life?



Of course, you're still missing the point that 9/11 was caused because of our idiotic foreign policy.

No. I've addressed that point, numerous times. If not here, then elsewhere.

I question whether you actually took the time to read my link to Curt's post on wiretaps, now. Did you bother to follow the flow of the comments in this post, to make sure that whatever you say, hasn't already been addressed? Here's what I said to superkoopa on foreign policy, earlier:

here, I take issue with the whole "blowback" reasoning. What is implied is that U.S. foreign policy is the problem. It is not. Perception of U.S. foreign policy might have some contributions to it. But that is far different than the actual foreign policy we have engaged in.

If you read Robert Kaplan's books, "Imperial Grunts" and "Hog Pilots and Blue Water Grunts", you will see that we engage in military interventionism in small deployments all over the world, to great benefit for the U.S. and also for other countries. Contrary to the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky view, we are not propping up dictatorships, but promoting democracies. We are making things better in areas where there is no media presence, looking for the next abu Ghraib to sabotage the enormous amount of good work we are doing by holding up a magnifying glass to the ounce of bad.

Islamic terrorists have plotted against Germany and France, among others. These two countries stood in opposition to the war in Iraq. So...what did France and Germany's foreign policies have to do with "blowback" against them? What Ron Paul fails to acknowledge is radical Islam as the root cause of the problem. Not American foreign policy. Islamic terrorists are killing innocents all over the world and it has nothing to do with our foreign policy and has everything to do with their fundamentalist practice of a religion that at its wahhabist and salafist core, rejects modernity and perceives anything that is not under Sharia Law as an abomination and a threat.

This is my number one reason for standing in opposition to Ron Paul.

I don't care what one thinks of the war in Iraq. RP saying we need to withdraw IMMEDIATELY from Iraq is so irresponsibly dangerous and naive, it blows my mind. So unrealistic...even the democratic candidates, despite what they may publically say to their voters, actually aren't serious in putting forth legislation that will get troops out immediately. They recognize the pottery barn rule, among other things.






When Reagan meddled in the middle east, our embassy got bombed, and Reagan pulled out, and guess what? Lebanon didn't bomb us again. Ever.

Aaah....but what you willfully forget, ignore, or don't know about, is that our "cut-and-run" from there, as well as Somalia, and Vietnam, among others, is why Osama felt America was a "paper tiger". He was actually surprised at the harsh response that THIS president had to 9/11. It may be part of the al-Qaeda plan to draw America into a deeper conflict, but he definitely was expecting more of a weak response than the one we gave him.


When we put bases in Saudi Arabia, however, and remember, Osama's a Saudi, we were. We don't need to be in that area, any more than we need to be in Africa or anywhere else.

After the Iraq War, and there was no longer any need to police the no-fly zone, we withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia. And guess what? Al-Qaeda still was not appeased, and continue to hatch plots and attacks there.

U.S. foreign policy is the scapegoat. A convenient excuse. It is not the root of the problem.

That's what conservatives used to stand for, but since they have blind allegiance to their great leader, they wouldn't admit otherwise, even to the point of conveniently forgetting that G.W. Bush was elected on the platform of humble foreign policy and non-intervention.

9/11 changed that policy. Please, do keep up.

And why should I give you any respect, when you have none yourself? "blind allegiance" because people disagree with your perspective and opinions? I don't consider you uneducated or "blind", simply because we disagree.

October 01, 2007 10:51 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Thanks, but we're well past 1984, and I'd rather live in a free country than a "safe" one.

No, what you seem to advocate for, is living in anarchy.


What's it to you if a terrorist kills me? It's my business, not yours. Your business is yourself.

At this point Robert M.? I could give a rat's ass about whether or not you're killed by a terrorist. But if you're living in my city, you're damned right if I care whether or not my government is allowed to exercise the tools necessary to protect me and my family, and my community from a terrorist plot aimed at achieving mass casualties, and not at simply snuffing out Robert M.

October 01, 2007 11:01 PM  
Blogger Uncle Pavian said...

I think I said something about how libertarians are people who like indoor plumbing but want to get rid of the city public works department. They're different from anarchists, who just don't like plumbing.
Actually, the liberal/progressive argument against fighting the war on terror is based on the notion that, by reducing the country to complete chaos, the more highly evolved elements will be able to take power in the confusion, because they are so much smarter and caring than anybody else. Smart enough to keep the Islamo-fruitcakes in their place, for instance.

October 02, 2007 10:19 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I think Word beat these people senseless lol

October 02, 2007 1:44 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Oh well Uncle P,

LOL I didnt think there was a difference with Ron Paul, if he wants to dismantle the CIA and The FBI I would expect he would want to dismantle the Dept of Water and Power also.

October 02, 2007 1:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

RepublicanGOP.com The Ring of Republican Websites
Ring Owner: Republicans Site: republicangop.com/ - The Ring of Republican Websites
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Free Site Ring form Bravenet

Proud Member Of The Alliance

........In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan....................................................................In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan........


Click for Harbor City, California Forecast


Click for Carthage, Tennessee Forecast


Click for Dekalb, Illinois Forecast