Thread: "I am for free trade," Ron Paul on the Lawrence Ku

Originally Posted by StokeyBob

sippy,

See how the link you made goes all the way across the page. On my computer it makes it go so far across that it makes the page wider than my computer monitor. When it does that it makes a slider bar at the bottom of the page that I have to slide to read the end of the lines.

You may not see it if you have a real wide computer screen.

If you post a link that comes out to long and makes the page real wide you can do this.

real long one

Then you can change it like this.

long[/color] one]real...one

Take enough out of the middle to still have it make sense... or you can use a new name if you want like this.

Change:
http;//www.fark.com/

To:
Fark

And you get this:

Fark

If you still don't see what I mean don't worry about it. I see it happen all of the time. I just try and tell people because it takes a while before most of us realize why the pages get real wide the way they do.

StokeyBob


P.S. Or paste this in to replace it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gold-surges-recor...ist=TNMostRead

Stokey, that's weird. I'm just on my laptop and it shows up fine.

Oh, for me the thread is real wide.

And now I'm seeing double.

Sippy wrote:

Personally, the thought of Iran doing this scares the hell out of me, but I don't think we should go to war with them based on suspicion.

We can both definitely agree with that. Hunter is not Bush though, I don't think he would move against Iran without evidence. Honestly, I think Hunter is a lot wiser than Bush. Bush's actual lack of knowledge regarding the subject of national defense, foreign policy, military capabilities, weaponry, etc. left him at the mercy of his advisors. Hunter has forgotten more than Bush has ever known in the suject area. Hunter has been to war and sent his child to war. He's the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee (was Chairman when Republicans in majority). He's been on the ground with a gun - he knows first hand the misery of war. Just listening to Hunter speak on the subject will assure you of his knowledge. The closest Bush has ever come to war was making an aircraft carrier landing to proclaim victory in Iraq. It's easy to send folks into a situation that you've never experienced yourself. Hunter has been to war, and I'm confident he would be more thoughtful before sending our soldiers in harms way. Hunter's potential as Commander-In-Chief and his experience is what catapults him above Tancredo as my primary choice. Paul is not a consideration for me.

MW, I know you better than that, and I know you wouldn't intentionally spread false data. We've been on this forum together for many moons now!

Yes we have.

On the Iran issue, if we knew for sure that Iran was actually building nuclear weapons and threatning to use them, I think Paul would act differently.

Unfortunately, that's one thing we can't agree on. Furthermore, I wouldn't want them to even have the capabilities of building one - more less threatening to use them on us. Just allowing them to build them would open up another whole world of danger for us. Unfortuantely I don't have ESP, but in my opinion Paul has given every indication that he would not stop Iran from pursing nuclear weapons.

I have no doubts that Sadam had WMD's, but it would have helped our cause over there if we had found them.

I too believe he had them - or at least gave us every reason to believe he did. Heck, we know Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja in 1988.

Did you watch the Glenn Beck show tonight? Duncan Hunter was on the show for the full hour. Beck flat out asked him if he thought we were going to go to war with Iran. Hunter told him no, we probably wouldn't go to war. However, we would make a surgical strike if we had evidence that they were making nuclear weapons (not exact words, but close). I see nothing wrong with that position. Like I basically said earlier, Hunter is not as naive as Bush - I don't believe he would be as easily fooled by advisors and bad intelligence. Heck, I'd be extremely worried if we sit back while they constructed a nuclear device that could eventually be used against us or our allies. I don't even want to think of the possibilities of one of those weapons falling into the hands of terrorist.

MW, I also agree on the strategic strike on Iran if we know for sure they are trying to make nukes. I shudder at that fact!

I have to admit, I do really respect that Duncan is a former Ranger. I have always supported our troops (it's their commander and chief we wonder about though). Those guys are certainly not cowards.

I did watch the Beck show and Hunter did a good job.

Lastly, (now hear me out on this one) what do you think about a "Trio Team" with Paul as pres, Tancredo as House Speaker, and Hunter as DHS head? Seriously, we both know Hunter would rock the country by actually doing his job 1,000,000 times better than the skull ever did. And with Tom as speaker? The dems won't stand a chance!
Well, it's a good day dream anyway...

Originally Posted by Coto

Is he a member of

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Is Ron Paul a member of:

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Yes, No, Maybe?

Is Hunter a member of:

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Yes? No? Maybe?

Cato wrote:

Is Ron Paul a member of:

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Yes, No, Maybe?

Is Hunter a member of:

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Yes? No? Maybe?

To my knowledge neither of them are members of the groups you've identified.

Sippy wrote:

Lastly, (now hear me out on this one) what do you think about a "Trio Team" with Paul as pres, Tancredo as House Speaker, and Hunter as DHS head? Seriously, we both know Hunter would rock the country by actually doing his job 1,000,000 times better than the skull ever did. And with Tom as speaker? The dems won't stand a chance!

I'm sorry Sippy, under no circumstance could I support Paul as President of the United States. I could probably support him as VP, but not President. As for Speaker of the House - that will be determined by the majority in the House. Unfortunately we're stuck with that dunce Pelosi unless she screws up big time or the Republicans take back control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. I don't see much of a possibility of that either scenario happening at this time. Of course that could all change if the current surge in Iraq proves successful and the American public actually see us winning the war in Iraq. If that were to happen, the outlook for Republicans regaining control of the House could improve considerably.

Since you insist on Paul being part of the next administration, how about this?

Duncan Hunter - President of the United States
Jeff Sessions - Vice President of the United States
Tom Tancredo - Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
Ron Paul - Secretary of Department of Commerce

To really shake up the establishment:

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) - President
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - VP