-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
I guess if you put stock in kerchick you also believe the ayers/wright nonsense as well?
Its all obfuscation from the bush/obama crowd.
It is quite interesting to see DB quoting palin hannity and limbaugh. I had no idea you guys had so much in common!!!
Heard limburger just yesterday spouting the kerchick trash with the same venom he spewed about wright...
Its all obfuscation from the bush/obama crowd.
It is quite interesting to see DB quoting palin hannity and limbaugh. I had no idea you guys had so much in common!!!
Heard limburger just yesterday spouting the kerchick trash with the same venom he spewed about wright...
It balanced out. It started the way so many have. I forget who referenced the way they control it earlier but it was meant mainly as a reply to them. I forget who and don't know the name 
of my weed ;D
I know I can't be the only one to see a CNN bias though.
We heard about a Santorm surge and Whitney H. for two weeks now, NOT A PEEP ON THE "MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE" by our Troops.
It did happen.
of my weed ;DI know I can't be the only one to see a CNN bias though.
We heard about a Santorm surge and Whitney H. for two weeks now, NOT A PEEP ON THE "MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE" by our Troops.
It did happen.
The public refers to government run. I agree with that part since everyone pays into it.
All this had been going on for a long time. Only when the people rose up against it did the change occur. Like you said the public demanded reform.
my full quote "The facts say otherwise. It's obvious Ron Paul didn't write the articles. That is what he has refuted. That is what matters. You are having to try too hard make it "sound" like he was okay with them when he wasn't. Everything Ron Paul stands for is in direct opposition to what was written. Why do you think you know differently?"
You want me to provide evidence of Ron Paul NOT being racist??? The evidence is already out there. No one has heard Ron Paul say anything similar to what you say he wrote.
Like I mentioned before about agendas. One incident makes the person? How does that trump the fact that he's returned budget money designated for his office every year he's been in Congress. How does that trump the fact that he told us the exact reasons for the economic collapse?
Nothing compelling. All you have referenced is someone said. Nothing factual. Not unlike what happened at Duke University
This is incorrect. Are you saying he ran his medical practice AND the day to day operations of the newsletters even though they were far apart? How is that possible?
No that is your misguided perception. Ron Paul takes credit for what he personally wrote not what appears in the newsletter with his name. Big difference.
This is incorrect. No one can get anothers tax records period. Why else does the media ask if the candidates will release their tax returns?
You're referencing a mentally disturbed person as a reliable source. Why?
This is incorrect. What this person said was Ron Paul was there for the day to day operations. That was proved incorrect since he couldn't possibly run his medical business AND the newsletters at the same time. The distance was too great.
Again that is your misguided perception.
Right now you're looking through the prism of the base. The general electorate view is never consistent with respective bases. That's why virtually all candidates primary to the fringe and general to the center.
repeating it isn't the issue. Not having any substance is.
This doesn't make sense. Refute what that Ron doesn't?
It wasn't a different business just a new operator or owner. But I get your meaning now.that's what the whole newsletter-changed-hands is about.
originally yes. Not the ones with the racist statements.
This is incorrect. He said he didn't pay attention to what went out under his name after he left. He wasn't saying it happened when he editor.
That is your misguided perception yet again. My standard of fact is not someone said. All the evidence, Ron Pauls policies, his speeches where you can hear him speak and not what someone says he said are in complete disagreement with what was written in the newsletters.
This doesn't make sense. On who happens? I said Ron Paul himself.
Without the audit the Federal Reserve Bill no one would know where our money is going. Trillions overseas to foreign businesses and banks. Which bill of his was bad? The one in 2003 that wanted to reel in the lending practices which ended up ruining us economically? The bill that wanted to give tax credits for medicine? He's not responsible for the actions of the big spenders.
Ron Paul has always been for reducing spending which is the main problem of Congress and you're criticizing him for it. That's like criticizing a nun for not turning tricks in a brothel. He was there to stop the whoring.
It started before that with Carter btw.
Ron Paul spoke about this as soon as congress got the ball rolling on it, Bush signed the bill. Afterwards yes Bush did raise concerns. But Bush never gave the reasons why it was bad. From day one Ron Paul told us the reasons.
Bravo for bringing up the Federal Reserve since they are the ones who have caused all trouble. The same thing that caused the Great Depression, the dot com bubble and the housing bubble. Congress did set the stage by not practicing free market principles and meddling in the economy.
He never did say that. He did say the blame was being passed around. This is what I mean when I say some people have an agenda and don't look for the truth but inside grab the first thing that they agree with.
What's really irritating about exchanging with you is you have to be reminded 30 times about every aspect.
(Whatever he is or isn't) pales to the fact he sells fear and hate for profit. He's no longer in the newsletter biz but he's busy selling conspiracy theories to the whole damn electorate. And if that's not enough, there's different versions depending on the audience. We're not talking the typical base to general shift, it's from whacked to retract in some cases. He's done a complete 180 on the subject of truthers.
And the little fella still has an out. While he simultaneously suggests ineptness AND direct intent, involving the government AND private entities, he can say the private entities had the motive while government unintentionally provided the ineptness.
Why else would he go off on Jake Tapper for inquiring about truthers? Why would any man openly and generously discuss any topic with a room full of people on video tape yet the same man lambasts a television journalist for similar inquiry?
That's easy. He's a conspiracy buff who recognizes that lots of folks don't go for a banana in their tail pipe.
Cocky is an emotion I don't typically associate with ya, itisme. When we were smack dab in the middle of states rights issues, you beamed us up Scotty to Illuminati stuff and repeated it over and over for pages and pages.
Tell you what, select any issue (other than conspiracy theories and Illuminati stuff.) Chances are I'll point out where I already opined on the issue and if not I'll consider your thoughts. But you have this conflict over whether to address my responses. Just try not to do both, especially at the same time.
You're stepping in your own pile of doo. 200 pages of text proves I'm as issue-oriented as anybody in this thread. Except for repeatedly asking you to get back on the track or feeling you need repeat explanations of the same thing, the thread has a shit load of info.
I guess you're a fan of traverse redundancy. At first I thought you just liked to repeat yourself.
I've seen you laugh and cry but now you're doing it at the same time.
You remember where JJ Scorpio says anybody making aliases to back their opinions will be waxed? You inferred that Snout and I are one in the same. Did you happen to take a look and realize Snout's posting your side of the argument, not mine?
Yep. Nothing new about nothing new.
Notice when they back off they do a three man shot very often. Rarely is Ron P. in it.
OMG Did you see that camera when Newt and Ron spoke. I am had a flashback they had about 40 angles and changes in focus.
Why do they keep switching angles so damn much? My head is hurting.
OMG Did you see that camera when Newt and Ron spoke. I am had a flashback they had about 40 angles and changes in focus.
Why do they keep switching angles so damn much? My head is hurting.
What's really irritating about exchanging with you is you have to be reminded 30 times about every aspect.
(Whatever he is or isn't) pales to the fact he sells fear and hate for profit. He's no longer in the newsletter biz but he's busy selling conspiracy theories to the whole damn electorate. And if that's not enough, there's different versions depending on the audience. We're not talking the typical base to general shift, it's from whacked to retract in some cases. He's done a complete 180 on the subject of truthers.
And the little fella still has an out. While he simultaneously suggests ineptness AND direct intent, involving the government AND private entities, he can say the private entities had the motive while government unintentionally provided the ineptness.
Why else would he go off on Jake Tapper for inquiring about truthers? Why would any man openly and generously discuss any topic with a room full of people on video tape yet the same man lambasts a television journalist for similar inquiry?
That's easy. He's a conspiracy buff who recognizes that lots of folks don't go for a banana in their tail pipe.
Cocky is an emotion I don't typically associate with ya, itisme. When we were smack dab in the middle of states rights issues, you beamed us up Scotty to Illuminati stuff and repeated it over and over for pages and pages.
Tell you what, select any issue (other than conspiracy theories and Illuminati stuff.) Chances are I'll point out where I already opined on issue and if not will consider your thoughts.
You're stepping in your own pile of doo. 200 pages of text proves I'm as issue-oriented as anybody in this thread. Except for repeatedly asking you to get back on the track or feeling you need repeat explanations of the same thing, the thread has a shit load of info.
I guess you're a fan of traverse redundancy. At first I thought you just liked to repeat yourself.
I've seen you laugh and cry but now you're doing it at the same time.
You remember where JJ Scorpio says anybody making aliases to back their opinions will be waxed? You inferred that Snout and I are one in the same. Did you happen to take a look and realize Snout's posting your side of the argument, not mine?
Yep. Nothing new about nothing new.
lets not point any fingers. You dont know who snout is. that goes for both of you.
I BELIEVE Disco is currently for Obama, but i dont believe he is 100% thrilled with him (and Disco has ZERO problem with 'obamacare').
Personally, i dont disagree with RP on MANY concepts, i just feel his approach is naive. Its a Trojan horse, and it could just open the flood gates to an environment similar to China. China has a Chinese EPA, you still would want to breath Beijing air.
No one will convince me i can EFFECTIVELY bring litigation against polluters, not before their damage is done.
If youre for Dr Paul, thats fine, i got no beef, ending the drug war, and border war could lead to a paradigm shift, but dont fool yourself into thinking he is the savior against NWO.
If the other candidates are/have opened the front door to NWO, RP is opening the back door. His fiscal policy is exactly what 'they' would want.
Personally, i dont disagree with RP on MANY concepts, i just feel his approach is naive. Its a Trojan horse, and it could just open the flood gates to an environment similar to China. China has a Chinese EPA, you still would want to breath Beijing air.
No one will convince me i can EFFECTIVELY bring litigation against polluters, not before their damage is done.
If youre for Dr Paul, thats fine, i got no beef, ending the drug war, and border war could lead to a paradigm shift, but dont fool yourself into thinking he is the savior against NWO.
If the other candidates are/have opened the front door to NWO, RP is opening the back door. His fiscal policy is exactly what 'they' would want.
I
IE2KS_KUSH
Dr Paul just bitch slapped santorum had me rolling, "because he is a fake!" Lmfao he looks a little feisty tonight
It's apparent that you have difficulty telling one from another.
These GOP candidates are acting like brats.... i blame GWB!
Where is the steadying hand to steer these fools?
Abortion and birth control are LOSING issues for the GOP, the more they talk, the more Obama picks up female voters.
FWIW this whole govt birth control issue is only due to the fact that THE CATHOLIC HOSPITALS TAKE FEDERAL MONEY. If they didnt take Fed dollar$, they could do whatever the fuck they want.
Its a losing issue that only old white men, who are already voting GOP, care about.
-
Where is the steadying hand to steer these fools?
Abortion and birth control are LOSING issues for the GOP, the more they talk, the more Obama picks up female voters.
FWIW this whole govt birth control issue is only due to the fact that THE CATHOLIC HOSPITALS TAKE FEDERAL MONEY. If they didnt take Fed dollar$, they could do whatever the fuck they want.
Its a losing issue that only old white men, who are already voting GOP, care about.
-
Try another read.
I don't infer who Snout is.
Reminding itisme which side of the argument Snout's on doesn't suggest it's him.
I infer there's no reason to correlate me with Snout.
If I was going to artificially back my opinions, wouldn't I first pick somebody who agrees? Rhetorical question.
I
IE2KS_KUSH
FUCK ME IS NEWT THROWING IT FOR PAUL BRINGING HIM UP ON PURPOSE AND SAYING HOW HE'S BEEN RIGHT FOR A GENERATION AND HOW PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE NOT SURPRISED! WTF?! LMAO EVEN POINTS OUT WE ARE GOING INTO TYRANNY WTF IS THIS THE TWIGHLIGHT ZONE?
I'm a fan of anything that seeks to curb health care costs. That said, I'm not happy with the law. I wanted single payer. Then I settled for the public option and didn't get that either. IMO, zero problem is a rather interesting assessment.
I though we talked about single payer... well you and i our closer than i though then.IMO, zero problem is a rather interesting assessment.
User Snout
I love Snout
Snout has destroyed the NObama lover.
Yeah i just wish you/he would come back...
-
Ohhh, Ron just advocated personally stopping illegal trespassers on private property. I guess that means arm yourself and demand papers. Turn em in personally - if they're not shot first.
He doesn't say thieves or worse. It's trespassers. I guess that means if you fuck up and walk on the wrong spot you might get a cap in it.
He doesn't say thieves or worse. It's trespassers. I guess that means if you fuck up and walk on the wrong spot you might get a cap in it.
- Status
