RudyTHEGANGSTER

:lol That was AWESOME! Basically my opinion as well. Bottom line: In a global economy, isolationism simply doesn't work. There's a difference between not looking for trouble and isolationism.

The potential impact of Tata's Nano has given environmentalists nightmares, with visions of the tiny cars clogging India's already-choked roads and collectively spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air. Environmentalists can be such a**holes. Oh no, billions of people reaching a decent standard of living? The horror!

Incredible. Document suggesting we conduct terrorist operations against ourselves and our allies and blame the Cubans in order to create a pretext for war against Cuba. Wow. Notice the date: 1962. It's just another in a long line of anti-Communist CIA-backed actions during the Cold War, from the reinstallation of the Shah in Iran to Iran-Contra. I agree 100%. But, doesn't that show you what sort of path intervensionism has led us? Woodrow Wilson was a high-minded fool. "Normalcy" seems good right about now...

And some people call Ron Paul crazy for wanting to disband parts of the CIA... I am not one of the "tin foil hat" Ron Paul supporters, but it does sting that I've found a candidate that I perceive as being highly capable of getting this country back on track and yet is getting zero consideration from the Republicans because he is more Republican than they are. The no-hand outs message will never resonate as long as everyone is looking for one.

The government is not some warm, fuzzy, and cute thing. States are the largest mass murderers in history. I mean, I'm by no means a truther, but some people do not realize how inept and/or criminal their government even is...just to think that the FBI supplied working explosives to the terrorists before the 1st WTC bombing is sickening...and this is not a conspiracy, it was on the front page of the NY Times. How short our memories are. I consider my income tax protection money.

:banghead Jeez, we support Musharraf's overthrow of a democratically elected government, Except we didn't and that isn't what he overthrew anyhow. send him 10 billion dollars, After he signed on to help in Afghanistan then we get mad that he intends on staying a dictator so we pressure him to let Bhutto (who herself is no angel) out of exhile and allow elections, We weren't mad, and the only reason we pushed for the power-sharing deal was to increase the Pakistani government's popularity she gets killed (likely by Pakistani ISI) and now there's talk that there will be "spillover" into Afghanistan, jeopardizing our fight against terrorism. The person may have been an ISI agent turned to work for AQ, but security operatives do no carry out martyrdom attacks. Eric, I fdid some research and I concede that I was wrong about a few things, though you glossed over a few details yourself. Here's what I found out. Jeez, we support Musharraf's overthrow of a democratically elected government, Except we didn't and that isn't what he overthrew anyhow. Indeed, the U.S. placed sanctions on Pakistan that (before 911) were only supposed to be removed when Pakistan returned to democracy (Source: CNN, 6/21/2001 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf...stan.pres.reax/). However, some circles credit U.S. pressure on Sharif to withdraw his forces from Jammu and Kashmir and the move to punish Pakistan for its nuclear tests (thereby bolstering India) to contributing to Musharaff's rise to power. (http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/wwwh9o14.htm) So, you indeed had reason to correct me and I would not say that the U.S.'s actions at the time were unjustifiable, but as we can see, such interventionism in the long run has created unforseen problems. We weren't mad, and the only reason we pushed for the power-sharing deal was to increase the Pakistani government's popularity Why is that any of our business? The person may have been an ISI agent turned to work for AQ, but security operatives do no carry out martyrdom attacks. With the ISI's money laundering ties to September 11th (General Ahmad sent 100 grand to Muhammad Atta, http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/dec/24ny9.htm) and similar ties with the 7/7 bombings (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11644/), I would not hold them much higher than an organized crime ring with government sanction, meaning that as in the past it should not surprise us in the future when people play for both sides. The CFR, a mainstream organization that most of the people running for President belong to, assess that the ISI "is hardly monolithic," meaning it is not like a regular government agency. Granted this is a very negative picture of Pakistan and the ISI painted by their detractors, but most experts agree that the ISI is not totally controllable (though it is not a rogue organization). Personally, the whole place is an unstable mess and I fail to see how our tinkering starting before the 1999 coup all the way up to now has improved anything. I would not mind reading a case supporting the opposite from you.

:banghead Jeez, we support Musharraf's overthrow of a democratically elected government, send him 10 billion dollars, then we get mad that he intends on staying a dictator so we pressure him to let Bhutto (who herself is no angel) out of exhile and allow elections, she gets killed (likely by Pakistani ISI) and now there's talk that there will be "spillover" into Afghanistan, jeopardizing our fight against terrorism. Oh, billions of dollars, is there no dispute you can't settle?* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8MOU_-anw8 http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Downlo...rica-Rescue.wmv *Try most international problems. Let's get our noses where they belong...back home.

If bin laden gave me 50 bucks, it's 50 less bucks he can use for terrorism. The reality of the matter is that it is insane we are supposed to be outraged that anyone takes a measly 500 bucks from some insecure whitae guy while it is common practice for all the other politicians to openly sell their souls and votes to special interest. The free and independent media is failing to do its job. Thes from a real story is the tens of millions that Giulliani and Clinton are getting from corporate donors for favors. That's real corruption, not some 500 bucks from a guy who likes Paul because Paul doesn't want to give Israel money.

As Fox brought up Stalin and Hitler were men of the year at one time... Putin as a selection certainly beats past cheeseball winners like the personal computer, the amazon.com guy, "american women," the planet earth, and the "everybody wins time's people of the year."

Who isn't pandering in this election? It certainly shouldn't be a surprise. However, it seems like Huckabee and Romney in particular have been pandering more than anyone. I'm a religious nutjob and I know that other nutters will LIKE this advertisement. Plus, it gets gratuitous free air play. good move.

I'm not so sure he's a fascist so much as a religious fundamentalist theocrat who would erode the separation of church and state to the point where it would no longer exist. I am going to assume you are being facetious, but it is a quote from a pulitzer prize winning book. The right wing in this country has historically been tied to religion. Furthermore, Hitler claimed to be a faithful Christian to his advantage. True. I just don't trust Huckabee anyway. On the one hand he's a good public speaker, but on the other he lies about a lot of things. Unfortunately, considering how close it is to the Iowa caucuses, I don't think Huckabee can lose Iowa at this point. OT: It turns out that the quote is a popular misattributed quote, sort of like "beam me up, scotty."

I'm not so sure he's a fascist so much as a religious fundamentalist theocrat who would erode the separation of church and state to the point where it would no longer exist. I am going to assume you are being facetious, but it is a quote from a pulitzer prize winning book. The right wing in this country has historically been tied to religion. Furthermore, Hitler claimed to be a faithful Christian to his advantage.

?When Fascism Comes, It Will Be Wrapped In A Flag, and Carrying a Cross? Being that Chritians are warned of false christians among their ranks (1 John 2:18), they should be especially vigilant of the likes of Huckabee who lies even about the simplest things.

Or if you listen to George Bush's debates in 2000, Paul harkens vback to a daunting 7 years ago! :o The world has not changed in 7 years, nor has it changed in 55 years. So, one terrorist attack means we should not revisit a fairly popular and arguably better approach to foreign policy? That's silly. The "blow sh*t up around the world and make more enemies" approach to foreign policy has not been paying enough dividends so that I would be so uncritical of it.

Strom Thurmond, a Democratic senator in 1957, opposed the civil rights act. What's your point? What is the point of posting that on a topic about Foreign and Economic policy? Excellent, perhaps we should go back to segregation and poodle skirts too. Segregation was ended by a correct ruling by the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. Not by our legislative branch overstepping its authority. I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned. Would you care to point out when he has expressed any disagreement with Brown v. Board of Education? If not, please stop suggesting that he supports racial segregation. Now what does it say that no one here has anything to say on the actual topic - that being the changes in the platform of the GOP, to which only Ron Paul has remained consistent in supporting the principles of fiscal responsiblity and applying them to our foreign policy. Don't forget poodle skirts.... The only point is that times change. Toss on another 12 years and you can add isolationism to the GOP platform, and Ron Paul hearkens back to the 1930 GOP in more ways than one. Or if you listen to George Bush's debates in 2000, Paul harkens vback to a daunting 7 years ago! :o

bush, if you care to do one intelligent thing in your whole 8 years of office, take us out of this god foresaken war already you f*&329052ing idiot Kucinich, Gravel, anmd Paul are the only people running for President that volw to do this. So if you mean your words, you better be voting for one of them. im not sure who to vote for...doesnt really matter anyways...same ol washington sh*t storm no matter who is pres. Those are the true anti-war votes (being that they are the only ones consistent on the matter.) So if you are registered Democrat, vote Kucinich or Gravel in the primary. If you are a registered Republican, then Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate. The war is the number 1 iussue for me. I don't care if it is a D or R, as long as someone anti-war gets the vote.

bush, if you care to do one intelligent thing in your whole 8 years of office, take us out of this god foresaken war already you f*&329052ing idiot Kucinich, Gravel, anmd Paul are the only people running for President that volw to do this. So if you mean your words, you better be voting for one of them.

I guess huckabee did not read the parts of the Bible that said "let your yes be yes and your no be no." To be honest, I used to think Huckabee was a honest guy whose positions I hated. Now, he's just proving himself to be a dishonest crook like the vast majority of politicians.

I was trying to remind people what conservatism used to be. Even Bush espoused it 8 years ago: That's what conservatism was before 911 f***ed our minds. The Cold War and the Korean Conflict parallels the War on Terrorism and the Iraq Conflict...both cost billions upon billions and seem endless. We are still in Korea. So, yeah, this is 60 years ago, but look how many mistakes we have made in the last 60 yyears by not standing by true conservative principles. There is only so long the US can afford its foreign policy. If you want to be in Iraq for 50 years (or leave 6 years from now in disgrace), then don't vote for Paul.

"They claim prosperity but the appearance of economic health is created by war expenditures, waste and extravagance, planned emergencies, and war crises. They have debauched our money by cutting in half the purchasing power of our dollar." "We shall always measure our foreign commitments so that they can be borne without endangering the economic health or sound finances of the United States. Stalin said that 'the moment for the decisive blow' would be when the free nations were isolated and were in a state of 'practical bankruptcy.' We shall not allow ourselves to be isolated and economically strangled, and we shall not let ourselves go bankrupt." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837 Ron Paul says that today and he's a "kook." The whole neo-con movement is kooky if you ask me. It is almost like thinking about any issue half-way intelligently is kooky...screw fiscal policy, let's spend ourselves into oblivion. At least Jim Cramer on Mad Money is saying it ius about time Ron Paul forces us to intelligently begin discussing such matters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

Keyes is old school conservatism...before "compassionate" became a popular word, they sounded a lot more like him though granted he was always a reactionary.

Perhaps the best way to cut the user of fossil fuels is to stop subsidizing oil (17 billion a year) and supporting a pro oil foreign policy (foreign air and military bases over sea) costing more billions. Gas at the pump would cost much more, making other energies more competitive in the free market.

Romney and Tancredo came off looking very well.

most likely the same people that believe we are still going to find those WMD in Iraq :blink:

Views aside, it's hard to believe that considering all of the pollution we put into the air daily as a species, that it's having only negligible impact. That just doesn't make sense. I mean, it could be screwing up our lungs AND polluting our water, BUT that does not mean that somehow an invisible trace-element gas drives climate more than the sun.