Aggrad02

Tom Tancredo: Bomb Mecca and Medina WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday. “This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.” On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments. “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.” Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion. –CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich What a great way to win them over.

Here is a prime example of what Ron Paul was talking about: Senate Pass Bush Spying Bill

I seriously don't think either country will nuke the other. Too much to lose. I strongly believe that if the US leaves, Israel and the surrounding Islamic countries will quickly have peace.

What you just said is very important. But you have to consider how the situation got to where it is to find a way to get out of it. If Iran is a threat to our security and is attacking/plan on attacking us in a major way, by all means we must do something about it. But to me it seems like our policy and Bush's threats have backed them into corner. They are between a rock (US in Iraq) and a hard place (US in Afghanistan). If we eased tensions by leaving the middle east, then the pressure on them would be alleviated and we could deal with them diplomatically. I still don't see the threat. If we leave that area and use that money to beef up security at home, the threat to the US will be gone. --Dustan

1) It is none of the US's business what they do to homosexuals. It is not our duty to impose morals on the rest of the world. Especially with tax payer money, American lives, and at the point of a gun. 2) It is not the US's responsibility to figure out the Israeli-Palestinian/Jewish-Muslim conflict. They have to figure that conflict out for themselves, whether it is through diplomacy or through war. But the US should not be involved. The only reason why we support Israel in the first place is because we need a policeman near the oil fields. And we should never do this with tax payer money, American lives, and at the point of a gun. 3) No one can rule the world, and it is not America's position to try. Especially at the point of a gun, with taxpayer money and American lives. I could also really care less what happens to Iran, I could also care less what happens to Israel, and I could care less what happens to the people in Iraq when we leave. On a personal level I will feel sad if there is bloodshed and hope it doesn't come to that, but it is not for the US to police the world. The US is not the ruler of the world, not the mother of the world, not the daddy of the world, nor is it the God of the world. It is not our place to tell people how to conduct their business, it is not our position to clean up after them, it is not our place to make them deal in commerce with us under certain conditions and it is not our place to force our ideals and morals/religion on them. Especially at the point of a gun. It never works and never will. The only way that you can change the direction of a country is by example and by spreading ideas. The idea of our force vs their force is extremely absurd. They have never used force against us except only in retaliation against us and inside their own country. Compared to the United States they have no force. Besides, the US should never use force abroad except in defense when we have been attacked first (examples WW1, WW2, Afghanistan). P.S. Also it you wouldn't have signed your name to the bottom of your post, I would have sworn that Bob wrote it. --Dustan

But isn't all of that "blow back" from our policies toward them. They seized the embassy because we overthrew their country. They are developing Nuclear Weapons because we are at their doorstep threatening to over throw them again. Plus they can't even deliver them here. Heck they know that if they somehow smuggled them into the US and set them off, we could pull a Bob and Nuke them off the planet. As to Iraq, they are just borrowing Bush's policy: "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". If the Iraq war would have been as easy as Bush thought it was going to be, we would have already invaded Iran. Isn't logical that if we weren't so aggressive towards them they would be more peaceful towards us? BTW: Israel can take care of itself. --Dustan

Brant, Why do you think we are at war with Iran? What has Iran done that is threatening to the US? How are they a threat to our security? If Iran wanted to fight against the US why isn't it helping Al-Qeada in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Don't you think one reason why the Iranian leaders are spewing so much anti-American rhetoric is because of our record with them, in conjunction with having over 100,000 troops and 14 military bases on their doorstep. First we booted out their democratically elected government and installed the Shah to be a tyrant over them. Then we impose sanctions against them. Then we give Saddam money and weapons to fight a war against them. We gave support, money and weapons to Israel who bombed them. Then we label them a part of the "Axis of Evil". And finally Bush's rhetoric for regime change in Iran is almost identical to the rhetoric he used to justify disposing Saddam. I would also consider Bush's "tough" talk against Iran to be almost identical to Ahmadinejad's against the US. I would wager that if we withdrew from the Middle East, use diplomacy in good faith to let them have their nuclear plant, and quit giving money and arms to Israel, we would become good trading partners with Iran, just like Russia, China, Vietnam, India and Pakistan. I would also wager that a non-threatened Iran would be a very stabilizing force in the Middle East, and would actually help prevent the further spread of terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Stable nations do not like the types of Bin Laden because they are a threat to their own government institutions as well. All normal people and governments want to be secure and safe, and have opportunities to raise their standard of living. With the sanctions now imposed Iran is barely scraping by with their oil revenues. Don't you think that Iran looks at the progress of Turkey, Pakistan, India and China with some jealousy and longing. Iran is very young and has a good population base to build an economic powerhouse. It is my opinion that people only fight as a last recourse or take resources. There are no resources for Iran to take from the US, we are too far away and too powerful. So if they are looking to fight, it is only because we have backed them into a corner. The real war being waged is the war against the American people and our freedoms by special interest and Corporate-Fascist (not all corporations but some) that want to form one world government. They are the same ones who are using the US military to wage an offensive war against the people of the Mid-East to take control of their oil assets. They are the same ones trying to form the NAU. They are the same ones who keep the federal reserve in place. They are the same ones who do nothing to protect our borders while screaming terrorism. They are the same ones who lobby for Israel. They are the same ones who wrote up the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act and all of those executive orders that steal our freedoms. They are the same ones who write the energy bill giving corporate welfare by the billions. They are the same ones that profit every time a US soldier fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time an Israeli fires a gun. They are the ones that profit every time an Iraqi Police Officer fires a gun. They are the same ones that profit every time a Palestinian fires a gun. They are the ones that profit every time a Sunni Tribal leader fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time a Kurd fires a gun. They are the same ones who profit every time a bomb is dropped and then profit more by rebuilding what had just been blown up. This is the danger we face. --Dustan

Spelling Glasgow. You forgot Bali, which was a terrorist attack on Australians. We're much better off thinking of Islamic terrorism as crime, something done by small numbers of madmen, a police problem. No matter what the White Christian Anglo-American-Canadian-Oz military forces elect to do, the police problem will persist and infuriate everybody. I agree with Dustan that this needs to be healed with creative thinking, rather than greater injustice. On August 6, 1945 police problems ceased to exist (at least for a while) in Hiroshima. Ditto for Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945. There is something about a nuclear fireball that simplifies matters a great deal, don't you think? I love the month of August. My birthday is in August. The anniversary of my marriage is in August and above all the Sixth and Ninth are in August. I consider 6 and 9 August Holy Days to be celebrated every year. Those were the days when we finally Got Even for Pearl Harbor. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off an shit down his neck. Ba'al Chatzaf Hey Bob, I heard there is no crime on the Moon either nor any Muslims. I bet if you booked a ticket through NASA you could be one of the first to get prime real estate. If you want a destination a little closer but some what cooler try Antarctica. -Dustan Edit: If you decide on the Moon, and are visted by aliens please don't nuke them, we don't want nuclear waste fly back to Earth. And if you go to Antarctica please don't kill the penguins, they are only looking for fish, not a way to blow you up. Plus a nuclear blast might melt the cap and then we would all be swimming.

Great post. W. Bombings in London. Assassination of a film maker in Europe. A translator of the Satanic Verses killed in Japan. An attack at the Glascow airport. --Brant All of those committing those crimes were originally from or had very strong connections to the Middle-East. Also the people at the top of the planning for such events (Al-Qeada) are in the Mid-East. Also, It is rather easy to convince/hire someone to be a gunman regardless of the cause. --Dustan

The more I research this and think about it. I believe that it is not Islam or even Islamic Fascist that were are fighting against, but that we are fighting over control. The US is fighting for control over the oil fields and the middle-eastern market and the terrorist are fighting for control over the oil fields and control of the people of the middle-east. For the terrorist to accomplish this goal they know that they have to have the financial and politically backing of the people. The easiest way to get that backing is to invoke God, it happens all of the time and through out history. Israel uses it to fight against the Palestinians and the Palestinians use it to fight Israel. It was used in the Crusade, it was used against the Native Americans. It is being used by Osama bin Laden and it is being used by George W. Bush. Fear and the promises of a free lunch have been used by politicians since the beginning of time. "Pick Me or else" and "pick me and I'll give you X" are the basis of politics and religion. Why do you think the first religious leaders arose. They wanted power so they invented God. There is no difference between picking a God and picking a tyrant. Both wish to take your freedoms and substitute the will of others. Remember, Islamic fundamentalism did not flourish in Iran until the U.S. over threw Mossadeq, Khomeni was a little known cleric until he could focus the people on the tyrant Sha and the US foreign policy that installed and kept him in power. Only then was he able to gain prominence. If the US had been sitting neutral for the last 70 years and then had been attacked like we were on 9/11 then I would agree that it is Islam that needs to be battled. But that is not the case. It has been 70 years of US foreign policy of interventionism in the middle east that has caused the current turmoil. This war directly descends from the Cold War. In our effort to keep the communist out of the Middle East, we have become the oppressors of the Middle East, and the religious extremest use this as their spring board to power. It seems rather interesting to me that the very countries that we "failed" to protect during the communist aggression East Asia and Eastern Europe, are the countries that now embrace freedom the most and that we are on the most friendly terms with. Those countries pose no threat to the US (Russia, China, Veitnam, Korea, Germany, Poland, Romania, et al). Even countries that were Islamic (Albania, Kosovo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Lybia) pose no threat. It is only the places where the US was "successful" in keeping out the Communist that we face the greatest danger from: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine and that are more and more turning to socialism: Latin America. It is also interesting to note that most of these countries have vast oil reserves and other natural resources. Considering the fact that other religious groups are not attacking one another, and that Muslims from free societies are not attacking others, and add to the mix that some members of Hezbollah are Lebanese Christian, then it is conceivable that it is not religion that is the problem. It may be the fire but it is not the fuel. The fuel for the fire in is US foreign policy and the American fascist (corporatism) that controls our policy. If the US gets out of foreign engagements, it will not end terrorism overnight but it will be start, Osama and the Clerics will still want to cause fear to further their agendas, but the Arab people will not have to choose between the tyranny of the US and the tyranny of the Clerics and the support for the Clerics will wain. Taking a short sighted approach of "they attacked us, so we should attack them", and "they are evil and we are good" or "they are Muslim and we are Christian", is the way that the Fascist of both sides (the Osamas and the Neo-Cons) are attempting to divide us and conquer us. The fascist terrorist are spreading tyranny through Islam and the Neo-Cons are chipping away our freedoms, all in the name of protection, all in the name of God and all supported by fear. What does the common individual in the US and the common individual in Iran have to fear or to hate about the other: Nothing. But each has to be fearful of both the American government and the Iranian government. The ideas of freedom and liberty rest on the respect for the individual. Therefore Government must be representative of the people, and operate to insure the freedom of it citizens. Once a government starts to oppress its own people, it is only a matter of time before it tries to oppress people of other nations, likewise a government that attempts to oppress people of another nation while upholding liberties at home, will soon fail to uphold those very liberties. That is what we are experiencing now, oppression abroad is being brought home. But the problem is, is that we are taking it lying down because we are fearful. We need to shrug off this fear and use our reason to solve this problem. -Dustan

Reagan shelved this treaty because it infringed on the sovereignty of the United States

Wolf, I thought long and hard about that when I wrote it and figured someone would say something along these lines about this. I agree that it would be more persuasive if argued by a woman, but I don't think the distinction matters. What is the difference between this and an African American saying Caucasians cannot discus racial issues because they are not black, or the poor person saying I cannot discuss poverty because I am not poor. This would severely limit the amount of topics one could talk about. --Dustan P.S. Please Please Please go through with your idea of coming back to the US and starting a radio show in NY. We need more independent minded intellectuals and thinkers in our society.

Kevin, I understand a lot of what you are saying and I am thinking on it more. I think I am pretty comfortable supporting abortions to an inviable fetus legally (for me personally I would never want my spouse to have an abortion at any stage but that is a different matter). I still have a problem with part your response about the difference between a fetus and newborn. I think placing the standard on the question of being an individual is fine, but the part about someone having the ability to care for a child other than the mother being the threshold is problematic. There is a responsibility of parents to their children, and just because someone else can take them does not justify abandonment. I am not saying giving your children is to someone who can take care of them better than you is a bad thing, but giving/abandoning your children just because you don't feel like putting up with them is horrendous. --Dustan P.S. Also think a little harder about sex and force. Sex is a very forceful act. Think on it hard and you will see. Think of the mythology about sex, our attitudes about the role of the genders in sex, description of sex in novels and paintings.

That is cool. Once again thanks for discussing. I have enjoyed discussing with you and Kevin. --Dustan

You took what I said out of context. Rep. Paul did not say that the person would not be morally culpable, he believes that using this pill in that manner would morally wrong. The whole last paragraph was about his political stance. Since the pregnancy cannot be determined, there can be no proof of aggression, so the person would not be legally culpable. Also that chemical is used for things other than abortion, (for example, it is also used to regulate hormones and has other beneficial uses as well), so Paul believes that banning the pill is irresponsible and government intrusion. -Dustan

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions? --Brant Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent? As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level. --Dustan It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything. --Brant I would say philosophy is centered around the individual, like Ayn's is. He is a student of Mises/Hayek economically and is also a student of Ayn Rand philosophically. Politically is believes we need to stick to the constitution. I have have not found any inconsistencies with his politically philosophy with objectivism, except for the issue of abortion and immigration. As for abortion it is not philosophical difference, just a difference in recognizing when life begins. On abortion, Ayn Rand stated that the fetus was a glob of tissue similar to an organ and the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body therefore abortion is the right of the woman. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is a life and just like any other individual deserves the protection from aggression, therefore abortion = murder. Both conclusions use the same philosophical reasoning (protection of the individual from society). Ayn always said that if two arguments are in contradiction and both are reasonable, check the premises. The premise that is in contradiction is the first, whether the fetus is life. This is where the only reasonable debate of the abortion issue is located. It has nothing to do with rights of women, because the rights of one person cannot be a premise to kill an innocent. If a fetus is truly a glob of tissue then no one in their right mind would care what was done with it. But on the other hand if the fetus is life, then it has the same rights as everyone else regardless of physical location. You cannot argue the pro-choice stance while holding that the fetus is a life (unless you are willing to accept Bob's reasoning that we should make lampshades and hamburgers of our children if we are so disposed) and the pro-life position doesn't even have a name if holds that there is no life (any argument from a religous stand point is unreasonable). Some may try to hold the pro-choice position and claim the fetus is a life by saying that the fetus is a parasite, but this is also not true. The fetus does not invade the woman but was created and placed there by the two individuals reproducing, if anything the fetus is a victim (even in the case of rape or incest the fetus is a victim just like the woman). Just because one creates a life does not mean that they should be able to destroy it (without once again holding Bob's philosophical outlook). Also to create is to assume a responsibility. Therefore the entire debate is about the status of the fetus. Almost all of the ideas above Ron Paul lays out in his book on the abortion issue. Can anyone who is pro-choice point out any problems with this reasoning. I ask this with an open mind not with the intent to demonize anyone. -Dustan You are mixing up "rights" with "life." "Life" doesn't mean "Life has a right to life." Rights appertain to human social existence, which the fetus doesn't have. "Rights" are a human invention. They are "natural" because they are reflective of human nature and needs. They are real only if codified. The fetuses "right to life" means initiating force against the woman. To say as Ron Paul says that she can't have a morning-after pill is a moral obscenity. If she has a right to take such a pill then she has a right to an abortion. If the debate is within that context then I am willing to discuss this further. If not, not. --Brant Brant, See my post above in response to Kevin about how Dr. Paul does not believe in banning the morning after pill and the reason why. Also see in that post the question about responsibility of the parents. Also I don't believe you can claim that the fetus is initiating force against the woman. The parents created the life and placed it inside the woman, isn't that an act of force? If anything is an act of force it is the male inserting his semen inside the woman. Both people know what the result could be. The formation of the ovum and the implantation in the uterus is a logical and preordained conclusion to the male's intrusion into the vagina and releasing his seed. The fetus is created in an act of force by the male with the consent of the female. Edit: (An expansion of this thought) I do not see a conflict between the mother and the fetus because the situation of both the mother and fetus was created by the parents not by the fetus. I honestly don't see how the act of birth changes anything. How does your argument not apply to newborn babies or young children? (Honest question) Please understand that I am not trying to necessarily convince anyone of anything (other than to vote for Ron Paul ). What I am trying to do is to better form my opinion of this matter. In my heart I want to accept Kevin's position of allowing inviable abortions, but principally I can not justify supporting it. Thank you for discussing this with me. -Dustan

Kevin, Thank you very much for this insight, I hadn't thought about it in this way. I will have more to think about. But off the top of my head I can see a couple of problems. And maybe you can address some of these issues while I consider them myself. It seems that this line of thought is avoiding responsibility. We all have responsibilities when we make obligations to other people. Whether it is a promise or a contract. What responsibility do the parents have for creating the life? Remember that pregnancy is not spontaneous, it is a result of a willful act (except in the case of rape of course). What is the difference between the obligation to give part of your life while the life is inside the mother, and giving part of your life after the life is outside the mother? Basically what is the difference between this and abandoning the child after birth? Remember that naturally babies are fed through breast milk, which is not much different than an umbilical cord (both take nutrients from the mother). Taking care of a baby is actually much more difficult, time consuming and takes more sacrifice than carrying a baby to term. The baby is still literally dependent on another individual of some sort for life, for a very long time after birth. It seems this argument slips back to Bob's brutality. How would you determine when the fetus is viable when the exact science of such a thing cannot be determined exactly? (For example my wife was born three months premature, she weighed less than 2 pounds but survived, one of my managers that works for me was also born three months premature (she was a twin) and weighed 1 pound 4 ounces and also survived (her sister did also)). As technology advances who knows what will be viable. Also there is difference between withholding nutrients from a fetus, thereby killing it and grinding it up. One is passive and one is aggressive. How could justification for one be justification for another? And finally back to Paul's candidacy, how would the disagreement about whether abortion should only be legal when the fetus is inviable or not at all (a vary narrow time frame), be enough to cause someone to vote against Paul, when his argument is philosophically consistent and all of the other political stances are very positive, especially in light of the other candidates that are either fascist or communist. Also consider this in light of the fact that Dr. Paul does not believe that this should be federal issue but a state issue. i.e. the question above about when a fetus is viable should be handled by the states and not the federal government. Dr. Paul also is not politically against the morning after pill since at that time pregnancy cannot be determined, he also believes that changing the chemical composition of the body to prevent implementation is not a willful act of aggression. These pills can work up to 4 weeks after sexual intercourse and provide the woman an option if accidents occur. He also believes that this pills should be available over-the-counter making access easy. Thanks for the insights, Dustan

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions? --Brant Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent? As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level. --Dustan It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything. --Brant I would say philosophy is centered around the individual, like Ayn's is. He is a student of Mises/Hayek economically and is also a student of Ayn Rand philosophically. Politically is believes we need to stick to the constitution. I have have not found any inconsistencies with his politically philosophy with objectivism, except for the issue of abortion and immigration. As for abortion it is not philosophical difference, just a difference in recognizing when life begins. On abortion, Ayn Rand stated that the fetus was a glob of tissue similar to an organ and the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body therefore abortion is the right of the woman. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is a life and just like any other individual deserves the protection from aggression, therefore abortion = murder. Both conclusions use the same philosophical reasoning (protection of the individual from society). Ayn always said that if two arguments are in contradiction and both are reasonable, check the premises. The premise that is in contradiction is the first, whether the fetus is life. This is where the only reasonable debate of the abortion issue is located. It has nothing to do with rights of women, because the rights of one person cannot be a premise to kill an innocent. If a fetus is truly a glob of tissue then no one in their right mind would care what was done with it. But on the other hand if the fetus is life, then it has the same rights as everyone else regardless of physical location. You cannot argue the pro-choice stance while holding that the fetus is a life (unless you are willing to accept Bob's reasoning that we should make lampshades and hamburgers of our children if we are so disposed) and the pro-life position doesn't even have a name if holds that there is no life (any argument from a religous stand point is unreasonable). Some may try to hold the pro-choice position and claim the fetus is a life by saying that the fetus is a parasite, but this is also not true. The fetus does not invade the woman but was created and placed there by the two individuals reproducing, if anything the fetus is a victim (even in the case of rape or incest the fetus is a victim just like the woman). Just because one creates a life does not mean that they should be able to destroy it (without once again holding Bob's philosophical outlook). Also to create is to assume a responsibility. Therefore the entire debate is about the status of the fetus. Almost all of the ideas above Ron Paul lays out in his book on the abortion issue. Can anyone who is pro-choice point out any problems with this reasoning. I ask this with an open mind not with the intent to demonize anyone. On the immigration issue. I know that objectivism holds the stance of open borders. Ron Paul believes that since our nation is sovereign it has a right to defend its borders and decide who is admitted. He is not for closing the borders, but for protecting the borders. He is fearful a terrorist could come across that border and wants to prevent that from happening. Right now he claims that the illegal immigrants in this country are being used as scape goats for other people economic situation because we don't live in a free market economy. He has said time and time again that if we were able to get back to a free market economy much like what we had in the 19th century then we would need all of the immigrants that would come and that when that happens we should take as many as we can get, but because of the security situation of the world we have to screen those people first to make it more difficult for those that want to destroy our lives from coming in. Hope this helps. -Dustan

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions? --Brant Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent? As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level. --Dustan

I will lay a fifty dollar bet the Ron Paul is not nominated to run for POTUS as a Republican. Since the amount is modest you can be sure I will pay up if I lose. Are you up to a bet? I will bet a further one hundred dollars that if he is by some odd chance nominated he will lose to whoever the Democrats nominate. Care to take the bet? Ba'al Chatzaf I'll Bet. Dustan, Brant is absolutely right. You are taking a sucker bet. Ba'al should at the very least offer long odds, since the chance of Ron Paul winning either the GOP nomination or the presidential nomination (should he win the GOP nomination) are extremely low. To take this bet at even odds is not very prudent. Be prepared to lose your hundred dollars. By the way, of course, I really hope you win! Martin I am not betting him to make money. If that were the case I could go to gambling sites and get good odds. I firmly believe that Ron Paul is going to win, and I am putting my money where my mouth is. $50 is not an overbearing amount for me, so it is no big deal. Plus when RP wins the Rep nomination, Ba'al $50 is going straight to the Ron Paul campaign as a donation.

I will lay a fifty dollar bet the Ron Paul is not nominated to run for POTUS as a Republican. Since the amount is modest you can be sure I will pay up if I lose. Are you up to a bet? I will bet a further one hundred dollars that if he is by some odd chance nominated he will lose to whoever the Democrats nominate. Care to take the bet? Ba'al Chatzaf I'll Bet.

He doesn't believe that Iran is a threat and would try dialog, negotiation, and compromise first. He thinks the real problem is Pakistan. He thinks Bin Laden is there and that the government of Pakistan has no control over the region where he is at.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=7517 Military support for the republican candidates NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN] RON PAUL: 23,465 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] McCain: 15,825 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800] Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0] Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250] Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0] Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500] Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0] Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0] Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0] Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations. Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly. Percentages: 52.53% Ron Paul 35.4% McCain 7.9% Romney 5.2% Giuliani 2.2% Hunter 2.6% Others *Note: These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.

Last item first. A fetus, if allowed will become an infant (most likely). An infant, if allowed, will become a person even as you and I are persons. So clearly a fetus is more than just a glob of tissue. It has a future (most likely) if permitted to realize it. First item next. Consider Dagny Taggart and the guard where John Galt was held prisoner. She shot him dead because: 1. He was in the way of a rescue. 2. He could not make up his mind. But you object because I want to kill people who are actively out to harm us or make it possible for fanatics to do that harm. Anyone who supports a Mosque (a place where fanatics are recruited) is at least an accessory to the deeds of my enemies, if not an enemy. Say! Who is it that does not understand what Ayn Rand is saying? Ba'al Chatzaf Read your text. Dagny & Co. killed those standing between them and Galt directly. They did not incinerate New York City. I have no problem going after those who attacked us or are planning on attacking us. But Iraq was not a threat to our security. Bin Laden was, and we didn't catch him. Right now he is in Pakistan most likely and we are sending subsidies to Pakistan. We should tell Pakistan like we told the Taliban to "give him up or we are coming to get him". And the only candidate talking about putting pressure on Pakistan instead or Iran is Ron Paul. --Dustan

:frantics: Please pull the plug on Mr. Meat Cleaver. W. I have to vehemently disagree. While I think Bob is crazy sometimes, we all should have freedom of speech. -Dustan