Originally posted by BigRed
FDR is the most overrated president ever.Cared about the people? Haha.
I'm not referring to the IRS stuff. I know he wants to get rid of that.
But he is not a member of the 9/11 truth like so many "truthers" believe. He is not part of that and does in no way, shape or form follow the ideas of the "truthers". He thinks (and this [B]is
on record) that the government was inept in it's duties of national security, but ineptness doesn't equal "perpetrating".Well let's remember that Ron Paul actually is consistent with his view of no new taxes and reducing spending and taxes all together. He's been rated as literally 99% by the people for reducing taxes (I forget their name). Consistency is the key.
On an unrelated note, while I do think the JFK movie is a good one and Kevin Costner (I think he was in it) did well; I do not take it as factual. [/B]
Like i said,in the beginning,he WAS saying that he didnt believe the official version.I dont doubt it that he's not a member of the truth movement but since he originally said he didnt believe the official version,that was one thing I liked about him.why he is not saying that NOW i dont know.
well the majority of things that were said and happened in the film JFK were again based on facts.Like in the movie,they show an actor playing Jack Ruby saying before the warren commission-a whole new form of government is about to take over.well he DID say that.Its in the warren commission,you can find that quote in the warren commission where he said that.a lot of the diologue in the film was based on peoples actual testimonys. and like when they showed the ambulance come in and take a guy off to the hospital shortly before the president arrived,that all happened.Events like that DID happen,Matter of fact I was able to meet that ambulance driver about 5 years ago at a dallas JFK convention.
Of course not EVERYTHING that happened in the movie was actually what happened.Like when Garrison was talking to that guy called MR X played by Donald Sutherland -who in real life, was based on a real person who really did know all that stuff named Fletcher Prouty.Garrison never met with him and talked with him like depicted in the film.Stone just used that as a way to get the information that Prouty always knew that there was a coverup,to use to get the word out in the film.Prouty wrote a book called THE SECRET TEAM about it,great book.
so yeah not EVERYTHING that happened in that film is actually what happened that day,but most of it is based on known facts such as witnesses reporting they saw riflemen behind the picket fence and the warren commission not even printing their storys in their TALE. so yeah,not all of it is the truth on what really happened,but the evidence is overwhelming that Garrison was very close to the truth.That it was the military industrial complex/CIA that killed kennedy.
Like i said,the movie isnt the whole truth on what really happened,but like i said,its a hell of a lot more accurate and closer to the truth than that fairy tale warren commission report that there was no cosnpiracy and that oswald was the lone assassin.Matter of fact,that was one of the things that made Costner agree to do the film and play the role because he supported Oliver Stones movie that the military industrial complex/CIA killed kennedy.He did a lot of research like stone as well into the case before agreeing to do it.
and oh yeah,you defenetely hit the nail right on the head about FDR.He sure is as hell overrated.as i pointed out,he was one evil bastad as well just like Bush.yeah thats a joke that he ever cared about the people.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Who is actually in the lead for the Republican nomination? I haven't really been following US politics lately.
Giuliani followed by Huckabee in phone polls.
Ron Paul in straw, internet and text polls (after debates)
Originally posted by Robtard
Then he doesn't have much of a chance, sorry.
Are you under the impression that you are bursting some sort of bubble or making any good argument against what Paul stands for?
C-cause you aren't.
Originally posted by RobtardTrue.
I believe Huckabee is currently in the Iowa lead.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you under the impression that you are bursting some sort of bubble or making any good argument against what Paul stands for?C-cause you aren't.
Well, the RP fanboys who think he's just "going to take it", that bubble. Saying that RP doesn't have much (if any) of a chance in winning the nomination isn't an argument against what he stands for, it's just facts.
I-I wasn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
True.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Of course it is, didn't we already cover "what Robtards says is true"?
Originally posted by RobtardAgreed.
Well, the RP fanboys who think he's just "going to take it", that bubble. Saying that RP doesn't have much (if any) of a chance in winning the nomination isn't an argument against what he stands for, it's just facts.I-I wasn't.
Still interested in the primaries. Seeing how the phone polls are so different from the straw and internet polls.
Originally posted by Mr ParkerYou do know that it is "Giuliani", right?
If it came down to being a close election like the 2000 vote was,they would make sure and have another florida and rig it to make sure he didnt get elected.Hillary or Guliano will get in and that will make them happy.
Besides, he doesn't have that great chances actually.
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, the RP fanboys who think he's just "going to take it", that bubble. Saying that RP doesn't have much (if any) of a chance in winning the nomination isn't an argument against what he stands for, it's just facts.I-I wasn't.
I continue to hear on a daily basis from family and friends that he won't win, but they never can say why. I don't get it. What dictates to people that he can't win?
He evidently has support. He certainly has money. So why not?
And I honestly believe, if the GOP does not nominate Ron Paul; McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee (regardless which one of them get the nomination) will lose to any of the big three on the Democratic side.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You do know that it is "Giuliani", right?Besides, he doesn't have that great chances actually.
damn I keep forgetting.are you talking about winning the republican ticket or the presidency? they already have it planned for Hillary to get in so it really doesnt matter anyways.I called it right in 2000.I told people back then they were going to make sure Bush got elected because I knew how corrupted and evil he was.This time they have it planned for Hillary.you just watch.
Originally posted by BigRed
I don't get how it is fact though.I continue to hear on a daily basis from family and friends that he won't win, but they never can say why. I don't get it. What dictates to people that he can't win?
He evidently has support. He certainly has money. So why not?
And I honestly believe, if the GOP does not nominate Ron Paul; McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee (regardless which one of them get the nomination) will lose to any of the big three on the Democratic side.
uh not the kind of money that Hillary or Giuliani have.hooray got it right.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh not the kind of money that Hillary or Giuliani have.hooray got it right.
Unless of course, Romney throws in another fifteen million from his own wallet.
[QUOTE=9983773]Originally posted by BigRed
[B]Well, the whispers going around at the moment is that Ron has raised more money this fourth quarter than any Republican candidate has (I have also heard claims that he has raised more than any Democrat candidate as well -- but I can't varify that).
I sure hope to god your right about that I just cant believe it though.