Latest Rasmussen...Obama leads Romney, and everyone else

Who cares about that? It doesn't matter how many people to defeat however President Whoever says "our enemies" are, remember?

So maybe you just find Obama to be a more efficient butcher. Whatever. Most Americans no longer support the war. They don't support the bailouts. They don't support the government.

 

More paulista nonsense. Who cares about 4k dead Americans...the Paul 2012 slogan

 

Actually, Mayor Giuliani, we've woken up to the fact 9/11 matters more to the political establishment as political tool and excuse to kill hundreds of thousands more innocent people than any alleged concern for the 9/11 dead--or should I say the 9/11 collateral damage?

 

Inside job time? Lol

Who brought up 911? I'm talking about Iraq.

 

the sort of tinfoil hat nonsense that keeps Paul marginalized.

 

So if you realize that 9/11 is being used as a political excuse to wage perpetual war and undermine civil liberties, you think it's an inside job? Good grief, you're like a parody. Hard to believe you think you're a liberal. I think Mark Levin and The Weekly Standard are more your speed.

Of course, if Ron Paul or some other "whackjob kook antiwar peacenik hippy" had been in charge, Iraq would never have happened. Nor would have Afghanistan. Or 9/11. Or the Cold War. Or the World Wars. But keep spreading that FUD about the perils of not dropping bombs on children.

"Conspiracy theorist"...another cynical, duplicitous trick to shut down debate by defining certain positions out of the discourse just by invoking the word. "Tinfoil hat" you say, and we're all supposed to go, "Oh no, someone said 'tinfoil hat.' Now we can't think about these things any longer because we'll seem disreputable to the readership of the New York Times." In reality, you are the one spouting "tinfoil hat nonsense" about how bombing innocents will bring about harmony and peace.

Those of us operating in the real world realize that the power elite uses events like, for example, the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 to whoop the masses in war, war, war. It's a secondary issue whether the particular event in question is real, contrived, or a little of both. The key issue is how it is taken and used as war propaganda because those in power love war because war is the health of the state.

 

Levin is entertaining.....especially when hes screaming at the Paulistas. If you werent going truther, then I apologize for jupming to conclusions.

im always impressed by the certainty paulistas view their alternate reality....from issues of defense to civil rights....they are sure they know what would have happened....even though it never did.

well we destroyed a few japanese cities and havent had any problems witht hem in awhile. lol

btw I love how anyone who doesnt subscribe to the various conspiracys just must enjoy bombing children

you forgot pearl harbor

responding to an attack on the country is obviously something Paualistas are deathly opposed to.....you can hear it as they suggest 911 is mabye real, maybe contrived

 

if Ron Pauls views were adopted Nazi germany wouldnt have happened...

the slave trade wouldnt have happened....

in fact it would never rain, always be perfect weather and we would all have jobs where we are paid in gold bars so we never have to talk to jew bankers.

 

True, because WWI wouldn't have happened had a non-interventionist, non-imperialist, non-nationalist policy been followed.

True. If people in the 15th and 16th century had followed the compassionate philosophy of humanism, natural rights, individual liberty, and voluntaryism that was then supported by heroes like Bartolome de las Casas and is today supported by heroes like Ron Paul, the slave trade, absolute monarchy, and the genocide of the American natives all would not have happened.

We can't control the weather, but we do follow great Jewish economists like Von Mises and Rothbard in supporting commodity-backed money, as opposed to state-monopolized and -manipulated paper.

 

at some point youre going to have to deal with how the current policies youre endorsing will affect the REAL world, not the alternate reality you show so much confidence in.

Id by lying if I said you I dont think you have any good points, as you certainly do. I just think youre looking an incomplete equation and pretending the answer is obvious to anyone with a brain.

 

It's all about knowing history. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

In one sentence, you dance about in celebration of destroying Japanese cities: "Sure showed them Japs! Also Rawn Pawl's a racist!" And in the next sentence, you act surprised that anyone might accuse of you enjoying bombing children. It sure seems like you enjoy bombing children; it gives you a nationalistic, jingoistic thrill. Get dem Japs!!!

Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened had Ron Paul been in charge, either. Next?

 

My policies would stop the butchery of Pakistani children, all for the low, low price of bringing American soldiers home to their families, saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and diffusing tensions with foreigners at the other side of the world. What a dilemma.

At some point, you're going to have to deal how the policies you're endorsing have affected the world by sparking all the historical horrors you yourself have listed. The philosophy of violence by state--whether through war, economic regimentation, or anything else--has engendered more suffering than anything else ever created by man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

I have to say I found it interesting....some good points....some crazy ones.....but primarily he seems to get lost the same place so many others with a rigid idealogy do....

in other words his theorys, just like Marx....only works if humans are flawless robots who act exactly as computer models dictate they should.

 

I dont believe I called anyone a "Jap"

but as a Paulista youre not allowed to acknowledge that your point was destroyed, and you have to instead take a confused juvenile attack line that addresses nothing I said

right, because Paul would have let Japan take over Hawaiii LONG before that.

 

ooooh I get it now....

your logic is because the world is screwed up, anyone who supports a policy that has actually been tried....is part of the reason and the problem...

thus you only support unproven theorys of how the world will and should act.

 

You are aware that your link is only to a New York state poll...right?

Edit: and I believe Bush lost NY in 2004.

 

The longer the Republicans spend in-fighting, the more they hurt their chances. Either way, this race will be much closer than either the right or left wing wants it to be. My primary concern is that I have heard a lot of perceived problems from the GOP candidates, but very few satisfying solutions. Should one of them get elected, I would hope they've got a lot more up their sleeves than has been thus far shown. Idealism is fine for sound bites, but in the chaotic world we inhabit it simply does not work. Those who want to be our leader must be prepared to deal in reality.

 

youre right, (*)(*)(*)(*)....ive been claiming that for months and didnt notice.

sincerely...thank you for pointing that out.

 

The theory of statism only works if humans are flawless robots, since it requires humans to have power to control others. Of course, if that were the state, the state would be unnecessary.

Okay, I concede you enjoy obliterating cities for nationalistic reasons, not ethnic reasons.

You think Japan wanted to conquer Hawaii? Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it...

Actually, history also shows us the non-interventionist limited government works every time it's tried and big muscular statism fails every time it's tried.

 

Majority of the debt is inherited. To see what Obama would do long-term with a stronger economy is hard to say. Patriot Act is no better. Tax cuts for the rich ties in with the current weak economy, so it's uncertain. Obama, at least for political purposes, seemed to make an attempt to close Gitmo but Congress blocked him.

One thing Obama is doing is closing down the war in Afghanistan. If you take McCain's words seriously, and not just as political rhetoric, we would not be doing that right now if he had won. Whether Bush would've had he somehow stayed in office, I don't really know.

Obama also pushed for ending DADT, which was successfully overturned despite Republican opposition. Considering Bush's homophobic stances, I cannot imagine him pushing to end that policy. And I doubt Bush would've signed legislation that required all Americans to purchase health insurance.

There's more differences in domestic policy than foreign. Obama also says the United States no longer tortures, but it's more likely we just send prisoners to foreign countries and do it there where they have no laws against it. So on that point also, I can't really say for sure if Obama differs with Bush, but he at least gives lip service to being different.

But if you're a libertarian against liberal domestic policies, and Bush's "war on terror" (however you can have a war on terror), Obama is probably close to the worst candidate you have seen in a long time. But that is only applicable to true libertarians, not pseudo ones that are really conservatives disguised as libertarians, like the Tea Party.

 

For those who live in Rio Linda that is less than 50%, which means the alternative is sounding better than Ubama...hehehehehehehehe...

 

You're comparing Ubama to Bush??? Thought Bush was the worst president ever and now you are saying that Ubama is doing as well...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

I can almost see rio Linda from my hotel tonight

 

I honestly think you live there.

 

It's not any worse than the rest of sacramento