ADVERTISEMENT

Rand Paul 2016 is for real

You tell me.
When did Mitt not pay his taxes?

Oh that's right...
Cayman Islands...
Rich Republican...
Criminal ....

Democrats for the little guy...
White as snow
We care about the Middle Class

John Edwards, Democrat for President
Inmate
 
I know facts might get in the way of your story but
John Edwards isn't an inmate. Try again
 
Mitt says he paid his 13%. That's only slightly more than I paid on the "huge" earnings from my pension and my wife's "tremendous" bank wages.
confused0024.r191677.gif
 
Once again you cover for the guy who cheated on his terminally ill wife...
He's a Democrat ....
It's ok with me.
 
Why don't you ever bring up Newt dumping his wife while she lay in a hospital bed? Why do you cover for Newt?
 
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Mitt says he paid his 13%. That's only slightly more than I paid on the "huge" earnings from my pension and my wife's "tremendous" bank wages.
confused0024.r191677.gif
Click to expand...
That's a complaint about the US tax code, not about Mitt Romney.
 
Newt is a slime ball for doing what he did in the past. True Conservatives can't condone that yet Republicans still support him. Once again no one party is perfect including True Conservatives.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:


Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Mitt says he paid his 13%. That's only slightly more than I paid on the "huge" earnings from my pension and my wife's "tremendous" bank wages.
confused0024.r191677.gif
Click to expand...
That's a complaint about the US tax code, not about Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
True, but Romney had no intention of fixing it, and that is a problem about Mitt.
 
You still haven't shown where he
A. Dodged taxes...
- or-
B. Invested money outside of the U.S. or in banks that could be used to help the U.S. economy.
Please enlighten me.


 
What John Edwards did was despicable. There is no Democrat on here, or that I know of, who is ok with what he did.
I'm still not sure what that had to do with John Kerry.


 
Not to mention cheating on your wife while she is in a hospital bed is not a criminal act as you claim.
 
Under ISIS rule dismembering children isn't against the law but on the other hand George Bush was far worse.
 
The same was said about Poland in 1939. The German - Soviet Pack kept us from fighting another World War...right up to the part where Hitler changed his mind.

This post was edited on 11/13 1:06 AM by Scout 4u
 
Comparing Isis to Nazi Germany is like comparing an ant to an elephant! There is no comparison. In most cases Scout your comments are pretty educated, but this one has no merit. Isis has no Navy, has no Air Force and the number of troops is silly. One US Brigade is probably as big as the entire Isis army. Don't get me wrong Isis is not to be taken lightly but they are not going to take over the world. We now have 3000 troops going back into that God awful civil war and in my mind that is about 3000 too many! Obama calls them advisors which is exactly how the Viet Nam war started. Terrible mistake if we lose a single US life because even if we don't destroy the planet in 1000 years they will still be killing each other over there
 
We held our nose to partner with Russia in that world war, now no one thinks we should let Iran help out in the war with ISIS. Why is it politicians think it's a bad thing to TALK to a country you disagree with instead of bombing them? If we can get some cooperation with Iran on this, where we have mutual interests, and a little on the nuclear issues who knows what good might come from all that in the future. But once again we're letting Netenyahu tell us we shouldn't agree on anything with Iran. If Israel really wants peace why did they start construction on 1000 new houses on the West Bank they should NOT be building more settlements if they ever want peace.
 
As I've said in other post in the past that I do not feel ISIS is the threat but rather their radical ideology. Middle Eastern youth in countries like Egypt and Libya are easily persuaded to violence. Are military is small in comparison to their hearts and minds.
 
Originally posted by Scout 4u:
The same was said about Poland in 1939. The German - Soviet Pack kept us from fighting another World War...right up to the part where Hitler changed his mind.

This post was edited on 11/13 1:06 AM by Scout 4u
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between Europe of 1939 and the Middle East of 2014, surely I don't have to explain that to you.
 
Originally posted by Scout 4u:
As I've said in other post in the past that I do not feel ISIS is the threat but rather their radical ideology. Middle Eastern youth in countries like Egypt and Libya are easily persuaded to violence. Are military is small in comparison to their hearts and minds.
Click to expand...
How does attacking ISIS fix that? Think about how radical Islam has spread throughout the Islamic world. It hasn't been by political action or by war.

ISIS has attracted fighters because of its success but it's not the reason a good % of Muslims in many countries are Islamic. That has an awful lot more to do with what they hear in their mosques and schools.
 
The topic of Radical Fundamentalism and how best to deal with it in the world will not be settled on this board today or anytime soon. Liberals do not really see a threat from ISIS, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, or even Al-Qaeda for that matter.
It is therefore pointless to argue a strategy against an enemy that you believe to already be defeated...

Conservatives learned a hard lesson in 1939, Liberals will learn it in the near future...
 
The less informed among us always need their 'bad guys' to rally against..well...to send other people to fight against.

and we do it all for Babs netenyahu.

we should put America first and we wouldn't have an issue with Islam.
 
I don't think either side questions the idea that Islamic fundamentalism is one of the most serious threats out there to the US. What is questioned is the use of $ and servicemen to fight a battle that many believe cannot be won militarily.

I think there's an important element missing from the WWII vs current day comparison - Britain had no chance against the USSR and Germany together. Iran, Israel, Assad, Saudis, Turkey, etc. are all against ISIS. The regional power structures that exist should be called on to fix the situation.

An honest analysis of US foreign policy in places like Iraq is that our actions (hands on or hands off) haven't generally been able to produce stability so why should we act unless we are directly opposing a real threat to the US or its key allies?
This post was edited on 11/13 4:11 PM by Neutron Monster
 
Just the opposite is true Scout. I believe that terrorist will never be defeated and should be under constant surveillance, but we should not be in the business of policing other countries civil wars.
 
Originally posted by vbsideout:

Just the opposite is true Scout. I believe that terrorist will never be defeated and should be under constant surveillance, but we should not be in the business of policing other countries civil wars.
Click to expand...
But all those arms manufacturers and merc companies pay off those politicians for something. War is profit.
 
I guess we mainly differ on the threat.

Liberals see it as a "civil war" linked to a few countries, therefore not our problem.
Conservatives see it as a "movement" against Humanity, therefore everyone's problem.

I would rather you be right on this one....
 
No, you're still thinking about it wrong, it's more about seeing it from the perspective that military action doesn't really fix things beyond a temporary defeat of one group that will then reorganize under a new name to fight again.

Isis is just al Qaeda in Iraq under a new name.
 
With leaders made up of the former Iraqi army that we gave pink slips to when we invaded their country. I can't imagine why they would be pissed off.
 
I believe I've already covered this but I'll go there one more time.

#1 Can we stand back and do nothing? I say no

#2 Is a Military Solution the total answer? I say no

#3 Is a Diplomatic Solution the total answer? I say no

#4 Is a Regime Solution the total answer? I say no

#5 Is an Economic Solution the total answer? I say no

#6 Is a Regional Solution the total answer? I say no

#7 Is a Global Solution the total answer ? I say no


All of the above and more? I say yes
 
Originally posted by Scout 4u:
I believe I've already covered this but I'll go there one more time.

#1 Can we stand back and do nothing? I say no

#2 Is a Military Solution the total answer? I say no

#3 Is a Diplomatic Solution the total answer? I say no

#4 Is a Regime Solution the total answer? I say no

#5 Is an Economic Solution the total answer? I say no

#6 Is a Regional Solution the total answer? I say no

#7 Is a Global Solution the total answer ? I say no


All of the above and more? I say yes
Click to expand...
grab your gun and go. Don't be using my money on your fantasy rambo.
 
Interesting comments V2. I've had my security screen block your post for the past year, how ya been?
Save that thought....
Just re-set your block till 2017
 
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
With leaders made up of the former Iraqi army that we gave pink slips to when we invaded their country. I can't imagine why they would be pissed off.
Click to expand...
Yes, al qaeda in iraq and other sunni groups had a lot of former Ba'athists in it.

Of all the Iraq war decisions, de-Ba'athification was perhaps the second most disastrous one.
 
Originally posted by vbsideout:

V2 it is also the government jobs program the pubs believe in
Click to expand...
Military and defense contractors are masters at managing legislators of both parties via "jobs" and "investment."

Look at how hard it is to end a single weapons contract or to close a single military base.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
If they can get by his stance on military action around the world he can no doubt be their nominee.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a deal breaker unless something happens overseas that changes things for a number of reasons:

- Rs have plenty of isolationist/less war voters at this point. It isn't 2002 or 2004.
- Domestic issues are more important right now than overseas stuff.
- Most of all, voting is a lot more emotional than is acknowledged by this sort of analysis. Yes, there are some positions that could disqualify someone from winning the nomination (Rs aren't going to put up someone pro-choice) but the gut feeling of voters is very important.

I left out one other fact that helps Rand - the primary map is great for him. Ron Paul won Iowa in 2012 and did well in NH, where Romney was a favored son candidate due to his New England background. He could win the first two states and look like an inevitable candidate.
Click to expand...
Adding on to my prior point, look at the preliminary New Hampshire poll. Primary/caucus map is set up for him to succeed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225152-nh-poll-paul-on-the-rise-clinton-dominates
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back