toldailytopic: What do you think of Michele Bachmann?

Granite · Aug 19, 2011

Is there an echo in here?

There is a huge difference between using military force to protect the world from totalitarian states like Iran and using it to conquer the world and eliminate freedom.

Iran's our making, spark. Now that we've created yet another monster, we want to pick a fight. We've been doing this for decades. If we want to whack every regime on the planet why is it, I wonder, that we always focus on the ones who have the oil? Can't imagine...

You want us to play hitman. You want to be a citizen of the empire. I don't.

This country would have ceased being free long ago...

Already happened.

if you or Ron Paul were charge as Nazis, communists...

Right. Because we won the war singlehandedly without any Soviet help.

If wingnuts like you had their way this rock would've been nuked to hell and back in 1962.

...or Islamic fascists...

Duckspeak.

olsparky · Aug 19, 2011

eameece said:
That guy is not the leader of Iran; the ayatollahs are the leaders. If deterrence works against the Soviets, it will work against Islamists.

It doesn't so take. The UN should be the policeman, not the strongest power who uses it only for its own interests.

There are no such threats.

When UN ever shown the ability to protect the world from tyranny without the US leading the effort?

Apparently, the Paul supporters here believe in globalism and the US surrendering its sovereignty to global organizations.

Granite · Aug 19, 2011

olsparky said:
When UN ever shown the ability to protect the world from tyranny without the US leading the effort?

Apparently, the Paul supporters here believe in globalism and the US surrendering its sovereignty to global organizations.

You are a complete and utter fool or a deliberately ignorant liar.:down:

olsparky · Aug 19, 2011

Granite said:
Is there an echo in here?

Iran's our making, spark. Now that we've created yet another monster, we want to pick a fight. We've been doing this for decades. If we want to whack every regime on the planet why is it, I wonder, that we always focus on the ones who have the oil? Can't imagine...

Duckspeak.

The present Iranian state was the making of Jiimmy Carter, who abandoned the Shah of Iran decades ago, paving the way for the present militant Iranian regime that continues threatens the free world.

Nothing going with Iran has a thing to do with oil.

I believe, though, that much of the attempt to downplay the Iranian threat is rooted antisemitism since that is one of the subgroups Paul appeals to.

People like you and candidates like Ron Paul are even more dangerous than Obama.

Fortunately, you're both in the vast minority.

Choleric · Aug 19, 2011

olsparky said:
The present Iranian state was the making of Jiimmy Carter, who abandoned the Shah of Iran decades ago, paving the way for the present militant Iranian regime that continues threatens the free world.

Threatens the free world? Is that a joke?

Nothing going with Iran has a thing to do with oil.

It has to do with profit and oil.

I believe, though, that much of the attempt to downplay the Iranian threat is rooted antisemitism

That is retarded. It is rooted in this country being tired of war and the lives and money it wastes.

since that is one of the subgroups Paul appeals to.

Now you are making stuff up

People like you and candidates like Ron Paul are even more dangerous than Obama.

Wow. So you would rather have Obama than paul? Sounds like you have bought into the rcc talking points about conservatism being a danger. Hows the kookaid taste?

Fortunately, you're both in the vast minority.

Minority? Better check the polls. Pretty sure I posted a couple for you. Dont know if you just missed it or if you too are trying to ignore the obvious.

Granite · Aug 19, 2011

The present Iranian state was the making of Jiimmy Carter, who abandoned the Shah of Iran decades ago, paving the way for the present militant Iranian regime that continues threatens the free world.

We meddled there in the Fifties. Created another golem, as it were.

Nothing going with Iran has a thing to do with oil.

Sure. And Iraq had WMDs.

I believe, though, that much of the attempt to downplay the Iranian threat is rooted antisemitism since that is one of the subgroups Paul appeals to.

What threat do they pose? And that kind of reckless rhetoric is poorly informed and dangerous.

People like you and candidates like Ron Paul are even more dangerous than Obama.

Championing an empire and rooting for another war is what you consider prudent?

Fortunately, you're both in the vast minority.

Because the majority's always right.

bybee · Aug 19, 2011

olsparky said:
Who are serious contenders, then?

Bachmann is certainly capable of winning Iowa and that would make her a contender.

Ultimately, it is a Perry and Bachmann race. I would expect Perry to prevail, though.

I agree Perry will be a strong contender.

Granite · Aug 19, 2011

bybee said:
I agree Perry will be a strong contender.

Which is pretty sad commentary, if you think about it.

olsparky · Aug 19, 2011

Granite said:
We meddled there in the Fifties. Created another golem, as it were.

Sure. And Iraq had WMDs.

What threat do they pose? And that kind of reckless rhetoric is poorly informed and dangerous.

Championing an empire and rooting for another war is what you consider prudent?

Because the majority's always right.

Oh, so conservative politicians want to invade Iran and take their oil? Give us any example of any Republican making that sort of claim.

The only statement any Republican I have heard make is that some believe it would be necessary to take out Iran's nuclear capability though bombing.

Again, anyone opposing such an idea is a fringe kook and dangerous.

olsparky · Aug 19, 2011

Granite said:
We meddled there in the Fifties. Created another golem, as it were.

Sure. And Iraq had WMDs.

What threat do they pose? And that kind of reckless rhetoric is poorly informed and dangerous.

Championing an empire and rooting for another war is what you consider prudent?

Because the majority's always right.

What threat does Iran pose? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to launch a first-strike attack against both the Great Satan (The US) and little Satan (Israel).

Look it up.

Stop attacking me due to your own ignorance on the subject.

eameece · Aug 19, 2011

olsparky said:
Well Ol Sparky, unfortunately for you, this kind of stupid thinking has caused more harm to us and not the other way around. And I also think you haven't a clue about freedom and liberty.

That is dumbest comment I have ever read. You, apparently, don't even grasp that is it is our nation that kept the world free from Nazism, Communism and Islamic fascism by exerting military force when necessary to stop it.

Yeah, I'm so glad that approach worked in Vietnam, Korea, Central America, Chile, Philippines, Eastern Europe, etc. We kept the world free there, yeah.

If we elected a kook like Ron Paul, who has been bought and paid for by anti-war activists and Russian donors, we live under the constant threat of being attacked with nuclear missiles by Iran or of a nuclear attack by an Iranian-backed terrorist group.

Russian donors? Whom?

Pretending Islamic militants won't harm us won't make the threat go away.

No, the way to do that is to attack countries that don't attack us, and waste over 4000 American lives and 100,000 others.

eameece · Aug 19, 2011

olsparky said:
What threat does Iran pose? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to launch a first-strike attack against both the Great Satan (The US) and little Satan (Israel).

Ahmadinejad doesn't have that authority, and he doesn't have that capability either.

olsparky · Aug 22, 2011

Choleric said:
Threatens the free world? Is that a joke?

It has to do with profit and oil.

That is retarded. It is rooted in this country being tired of war and the lives and money it wastes.

Now you are making stuff up

Wow. So you would rather have Obama than paul? Sounds like you have bought into the rcc talking points about conservatism being a danger. Hows the kookaid taste?

Minority? Better check the polls. Pretty sure I posted a couple for you. Dont know if you just missed it or if you too are trying to ignore the obvious.

LOL...You don't think nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a threat to the nation and free world? If not, you're either naive or grossly ignorant.

Literally, thousands, if not millions, of Americans could end up dying if Iran obtains nuclear weapons because Ahmadinejad is likely to use them.

Obama and Paul are equally dangerous.

olsparky · Aug 22, 2011

eameece said:
Yeah, I'm so glad that approach worked in Vietnam, Korea, Central America, Chile, Philippines, Eastern Europe, etc. We kept the world free there, yeah.

Russian donors? Whom?

No, the way to do that is to attack countries that don't attack us, and waste over 4000 American lives and 100,000 others.

What in the world does the Iraq war have to do with Iran?

There was no choice but to send and keep our military in the middle east after 9/11. The alternative was constant threats of terrorist attacks on US soil.

And, this proof you're TOTALLY ignorant of the history of Islam. Islam since its inception has tried to conquer the world.

Ignoring the Islamic threat will turn this nation into Israel, a nation hunkered down preparing for the next Muslim terrorist attack.

Ron Paul and people like you are a danger to everyone in the nation.

Choleric · Aug 22, 2011

olsparky said:
LOL...You don't think nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a threat to the nation and free world? If not, you're either naive or grossly ignorant.

Literally, thousands, if not millions, of Americans could end up dying if Iran obtains nuclear weapons because Ahmadinejad is likely to use them.

Obama and Paul are equally dangerous.

Except Iran has no way of getting this non existent nuke over here. It isn't even close to a threat to the us.

So I guess you think the cold war was a bad idea then? Would you have rathered we bomb them?

Don't you find it a little funny that your solution to avoiding war is war? Your idea to save life is to sacrifice it? All for some threat that doesn't even exist yet?

Obama is Bush2. Perry would be a repeat of the same theme. He is a RINO and is owned by private interest. Just like Obama did none of the things he promised, perry talks big but would continue the wars, start new ones and further drive this nation into hyper inflation and the end of america.

We can't afford a war, don't need to fight one and we need to end the fed. Perry talks about it, only one candidate would do it.

The Barbarian · Aug 22, 2011

Rusha writes:
Says the guy who promotes pro-abortion candidates such as John McCain ...

Chrys asks:

what was the alternative?

A guy who is completely opposed to abortion. Like Keyes. But if you vote for someone who opposes abortion, SOMEONE WHO FAVORS ABORTION WILL WIN!!!!

Like Obama or Romney or Perry.

Five Republican presidential candidates have signed a pledge to advance the anti-abortion movement if elected to the White House, but the current front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination — Mitt Romney — isn’t one of them.

Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum each signed the pledge, sponsored by Susan B. Anthony List, vowing to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are opposed to abortion.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html#ixzz1VnXX4APe

So tell us, Chrys, will you be voting for Romney if he's nominated? He's put you on notice that he's unwilling to sign a pledge to nominate anti-abortion judges.

Tell us what you'll do.

toldailytopic: What do you think of Michele Bachmann?

Granite

New member

olsparky

New member

Granite

New member

olsparky

New member

Choleric

New member

Granite

New member

bybee

New member

Granite

New member

olsparky

New member

olsparky

New member

eameece

New member

eameece

New member

olsparky

New member

olsparky

New member

Choleric

New member

The Barbarian

BANNED