I think who should win this poll is pretty obvious, but I know one of those choices has an overzealous following who love to spam polls. I mean, the people who love a dancing monkey are just so over the top in their praise for a dancing monkey that it freaks me out. They’re always going on and on about how a dancing monkey is “the James Madison of our time” and how a dancing monkey is the only hope for our country. And they don’t seem to acknowledge the fact that 99% of Americans when asked about a dancing monkey respond with either “A dancing monkey is stupid,” or “What’s a dancing monkey?” How delusional are they to not realize how ridiculously insane they all look going on and on about their a dancing monkey? If anything, the crazed a dancing monkey followers ruined any chance of national support for a dancing monkey because everyone sees those wackos who love a dancing monkey and say, “If those nuts are for a dancing monkey, then a dancing monkey is probably just as stupid as they are.”
So, anyway, please don’t spam this poll.
Heck, even I voted for the monkey.
What do you think I am? Crazy?
You know that crazy list of Kim Jong Il’s accomplishments (like he hit 8 holes in one in his first round of golf)? I think you could switch out Kim Jong Il’s name and insert Ron Paul and it would sound just like one of his supporters. I mean if you substituted a dancing monkey for Kim Jong Il. Not Ron Paul. They don’t look/act anything alike.
Only evil people hate the last true hope for America
You want to vote for one of those Karl Rovian establishment Bush bots insiders like Fred Thopmsone U R a stoopid poo flinger
You only Hate because U don’t like how his gr8tness proves your how little p***** is.
Dancing Monkey iz our only hope!
Hail Chthulu,
Monkey Faced Liberal
PS: Who is Ron Paul?
Just today now that McCain is gone Ron Paul sky rocketed up in the on-line polls!
Seriously, why does this man think he has a shot?
Probably for the same reason Joe Biden keeps running. Eternal optimists, should be kept out of real politics.
Confidentially, the reason Joe Biden keeps running is so that he can use the “leftover” donations from his (usually) dismal campaign as a private Slush Fund.
Can we send the dancing monkey to take care of Katie Couric’s behind so that we don’t have to look at it.
Depends on whether the monkey is Hillary Clinton or not.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I can with a sound mind understand that the odds are stacked against him winning. He is hated (due to his congressional record for only voting for laws that pass contitutional muster), and at the same time feared, by the GOP, so that provides for an uphill battle in itself. Paul’s presence in the race is important, however, because he puts issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone makes them far more substantive and interesting than they’ve been in a generation. One example is the Patriot Act, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.
Ron Paul is more than just a conservative seeking office, he is a leader teaching us a nearly forgotten way of life with long lost ideas of liberty and responsibility, of truth and humility. His thoughts resonate with millions of Americans who yearn for the solid, honest, small-government, pro-peace party that the Republicans can become once again.
As for Fred Thompson, I don’t see the substance. He comes across as someone who is just using shallow political talking points as opposed to someone who truly believes, and has truly backed-up, what he says – like Ron Paul has.
Is Ron Paul perfect? Am I a nut because I support Ron Paul from what I wrote above (as many on this forum seem to think any Ron Paul supporter is a nut)? Neither is the case, and Ron Paul is not perfect by any means. He probably won’t win, but you never know, and he has my vote. That being said, If Ron Paul were not in the race, Thompson might well get my vote, even though he just comes across as another bought and paid for talking head, but less so than the “mainstream” candidates.
Per the below link, Ron Paul has shown himself to be an eloquent speaker and debater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
No, Paul is hated because he encourages loony conspiracy theorists, and refuses to acknowlegde the military component of guaranteeing peace. Here’s what gets me: why do his supporters claim he is the reincarnation of Jefferson? Both were for small government, but thats about it for similarites.
U have made an enemy bigger than you can comprehend today!!!!
I find it interesting how you label all Ron Paul supporters the same way. I never said he was and have never thought of Ron Paul as the reincarnation of Jefferson. Ron Paul does harken back to the beliefs of our founders as a whole, and I have no problem with that.
Your group labeling is just the point that Ron Paul makes at the end of the above YouTube link in regards to racism. You get hatred when people are labeled into groups (and I feel hatred in your post, and you did use the word after all) as opposed to respecting each persons individual liberty and respecting their views.
I respect your right to dislike Ron Paul and support whichever candidate you wish. I dislike your stereotyping and hateful group think.
As for the military component guaranteeing peace, Ron Paul has never been against a strong military. Per the above YouTube video he is against “pre-emptive” (and unconsitutional) war. Since WWII we have had three undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and lost all three. Ron Paul has specifically stated that either we go to full war and win or we back off and stop trying to use our military as street cops.
Under the this Bush “pre-emptive” war philosophy we should have launched nucular weapons against the former Soviet Union, yet we managed to have peace for 30 years of “Cold War”, and saved hundreds of millions of lives on both sides. North Korea and Iran are of no true nucular threat to us (they have no ICBM’s), so why should we nuke them? That is Ron Paul’s point. However, if they mess with us, we wipe them off the face of the earth with out own nukes. That kept the Soviet Union off our backs for thirty years and that is how gain respect in the world community. You carry a big stick, but you mind your own business and stop being a bully that only motivates suicidal terrorists.
Oh, no! The ballot was confusing, and I accidentally voted for Ron Paul!
I think tmg convinced me.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To vote for the monkey, that is.
Good one! I’ll go for humor and/or good debate over hatred anyday.
Speaking of a previous post, I do think that is one area the other candidates will try and attack Paul – on national defense. However, realize that in 1976 Paul was one of only 4 congressman to support a future President Reagan. He is a true Reagan Republican, and Reagan also espoused the Libertarian philosophy.
Realize that Reagan was for small government and peace also, yet he built our military to its largest and most powerful level ever (past or since), but he rarely used this mighty military (especially on a major level like Vietnam or Iraq) to “police” the world.
Reagan used our military power as a deterent to Soviet and any other aggression and that is Ron Paul’s view. The rest of the world has no respect for our military today because we just have these half-hearted police actions. We regain respect by having a powerful military that minds its own business, but when called to action it does so at the consent of the people in a constitutional manner and goes to war in such a manner that the enemy is brought to its knees. Either you wipe Iraq off the face of the earth or you don’t bother going in while trying to police the country in a manner where our soldiers become sitting ducks. Ron Paul predicted the exact problems we would have in Iraq bcak in 2002.
“He is hated (due to his congressional record for only voting for laws that pass contitutional muster), and at the same time feared, by the GOP, so that provides for an uphill battle in itself.”
As stated above, he’s hated for egging on conspiracy theories. He’s been a member of the Republican Party for years and there was nowhere near this level of animosity toward the guy (even after he came out against Iraq) among Republicans until his comments on 9/11– also a decent amount of his supporters are lunatics. (And, sorry, but a guy who gets 1% in the polls is feared by no one.)
“One example is the Patriot Act, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception.”
The Patriot Act was far less of a curtailment of civil liberties than what Lincoln and Roosevelt did during the Civil War (Andersonville, locking up state legislators) and World War II and we wouldn’t have won either war without them.
Under the this Bush “pre-emptive” war philosophy we should have launched nucular weapons against the former Soviet Union, yet we managed to have peace for 30 years of “Cold War”, and saved hundreds of millions of lives on both sides.
Pre-emptive would have been going after them before they got nuclear weapons and (no, after ’49 I would have waited) but how many millions died during the peace?
“North Korea and Iran are of no true nucular threat to us (they have no ICBM’s), so why should we nuke them?”
I don’t think we should nuke them, just topple their dictators
“However, if they mess with us, we wipe them off the face of the earth with out own nukes.”
They’re only going to mess with us when they know they can – if Iran gets nukes and invades its neighbors, what’s your solution? (see, this is my point, do you have one that leads to us not getting nuked?)
“Since WWII we have had three undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and lost all three.”
Korea was at worst a stalemate not a loss and even Vietnam would have given us the same result if we hadn’t abandoned them and failed to deliver our promised support when they were reinvaded in 75. Iraq is not lost yet, but treating it as lost can only result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. As far as Iraq being pre-emptive, I’m still annoyed Bush used that as his explanation, but in the Gulf War, Iraq signed a truce, it didn’t abide by the terms of that truce–that’s all the explanation I need.
[Actually even that’s kinda much, since when do we need an excuse to attack dictators?]
Poli – your post makes no sense to me, except for your mean-spirited and hateful words. Yes, the Eastern Bloc countries lived in a nightmare, but we had peace and prosperity in our own country without losing the hundreds of millions of lives it would have taken in the subsequent nuclear war to “save” these people under Soviet rule that would have wiped out the planet, and today those people are free – if that is the point you are trying to get at.
Otherwsie, you are saying you lived near a Soviet country and it was Hell due to the “Cold War”. Well, that is over and Ron Pauls’ point is NOT to get involved in stuff like that. The Cold Was was an unfortunate consequence of WWII, but it is not part of today’s reality, with the point being (mine and Ron Paul’s) that the U.S. should stay away from policing the world, and from that standpoint, it sounds as if Ron Paul might be the guy for you.
WAL – I liked how Ron Paul responded to Rudy regarding 9/11. See the below YouTube.
I do appreciate your well reasoned debate in regards to your positions (not that I agree with them, but we are all entitled to our opinions). Was not sure there was reasonable debate on this site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkTIjl8PbM
“The rest of the world has no respect for our military today because we just have these half-hearted police actions.”
Oh come on, what is France going to do – send its one aircraft carrier to help us? Most nations, even developed ones, couldn’t help out even if they wanted to. What good did respect do for the people of Darfur? Bosnia? Croatia? (of course, we should have let those people fry right? Paul would have done it to Korea.) There’s a quote from Golda Mier – “The Jews are used to colletive eulogies, but Israel will not die for the world to speak well of it.” As far as I’m concerned the same thing goes with the United States. Respect and $1.50 will buy you a bag of chips.
“Paul’s presence in the race is important, however, because he puts issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored.”
I realize I may be becoming a broken record, but I liked Ron Paul for a long time for the same reason–It’s the conspiracy stuff that lost me.
TMG, Re: 9/11 – I’m sure both you and him are arguing in good faith, but (to repost something from before) my problem with Ron Paul’s position is this:
What Bin Laden’s emphasized about our presence there is us occupying Saudi Arabia in the 90s, the same country, obviously, where Mecca and Medina is. From stuff I’ve read about him, it was this that drove him nuts–not the fact that we were in the Middle East period.
Where I have a problem with Paul’s explanation, is that if you’re going to credit this as causing 9/11, it supports the Iraq War not the other way around.
The only reason we were in Saudi Arabia was because of Hussein. If we left the region, he would have invaded it again. If we pulled our planes away from Northern and Southern Iraq, he would have gone after the Kurds and the Shia again. I’m not okay with that on a humanitarian basis, but also, just strictly from position of the United States’ well-being, Saddam Hussein gaining control of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and (yes) their oil would have been absolutely untenable.
If we wanted to avoid the problem that pissed off Bin Laden for all those year (us being in Saudi Arabia), we had to either take out Saddam Hussein or just leave and let him take control of all of it.
Between letting Saddam Hussein become that powerful and taking him out, I say we had to take him out if we were ever going to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia — that this is an argument in favor of the Iraq War not against it.
The problem I have with even this argument, however, is that 1.) we’re taking Bin Laden at his word (he’s given a bunch of reasons for why he does what he does and I think we can count on him to pick a few that are at least somewhat sympathetic to outsiders–it doesn’t mean they’re the real reasons) 2.) if we’re going to run our foreign policy based on whether a guy like Bin Laden’s okay with it, God help us–If we attack any dictator, if we go anywhere in the world, it’s going to anger somebody–If we quit doing that it will be bad for us and horrible for much of the world.
Besides that, though, Bin Laden’s also mentioned among his reasons for attacking us is his belief that the United States has a glass jaw (we bailed in Lebanon in the 80s, we bailed in Somalia, we had him attacking us throughout the 90s without really doing much against him). Pulling out of Iraq won’t help us change that perception. And for that matter, yeah, Bin Laden is pissed we’re in the Middle East. He’s also pissed Christians are still in Spain. Tough noogies.
Think this Paul guy is a conservative? Think again.
He’s admirred by the loony moonbats of the Dummie Underground site. Here’s a complete quote from one commenter.
“Decruiter (915 posts) Sun Jul-08-07 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. I would so support this man for president of this floundering nation.
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 03:59 AM by Decruiter
He so speaks so much truth to power.
If he did decide to run I fear that my fear would get the best of me. The same fear I warned someone else off of tonight.
RFK Jr is Presidential.
Maybe we could have our own “shadow government”.
Gore, RFK Jr., Kucinich, Ron Paul, fun to play with anyway. One can dream… ”
I emboldened the name so you can’t miss it.
Love the “shadow government” part too.
There IS no reasonable debate on this site; it is a humor site. If you want reasonable debate, click over here. If you keep coming here to debate, we’re going to put you and the Limey and Spacemonkey in a room together and watch the fireworks.
“I do appreciate your well reasoned debate…”
ah damnit, civility – well ok.
WAL – I’ve looked into the conspiracy stuff and I think it is overblown, but that is my opinion and I respect yours. There is also no doubt in my mind that our government covers stuff up all the time (not saying 9/11).
As for the rest of the world, I agree with Ron Paul that it is not our job to police it. If Iran invades the whole Middle East and gets nukes, so what? It could work out to our benefit as opposed to costing millions of American lives in a war.
It’s time for our country to find ways to stop being so reliant on foreign oil anyway, and besides, if Iran owned the Middle East, it would be unwise for them not to reap the rewards of being friendly with us so they can sell us that oil.
As far as Iran possibly becoming a nuclear threat down the road, I think they would realize that any lame attack by them would receive a response to the point that not even a cockroach would be left living in the entire Middle East following the ensuing nuclear winter caused by a snowstorm of thousands of U.S. nuclear warheads.
Let then solve their own problems in the Middle East so we can put the close to $1 trillion a year we spend policing that area towards better schools, healthcare, etc. in our owncountry.
Skul – I’m not so concerned that a nutjob here or there likes any candidate. I look at the candidates on their own merits based on my own political philosophy and personal beliefs. I’m sure each and every candidate has nutjobs interested in them for one reason or another. If Ron Paul has more than others it is simply because his message is probaly the most anti-establisment, and just look where the establishment has gotten us?
“If Iran invades the whole Middle East and gets nukes, so what? It could work out to our benefit as opposed to costing millions of American lives in a war.”
TMG, here’s what I don’t get – if it’s not a country’s job to police another country, why would the respect of other places mean anything to us? Since we would have been wrong in protecting the Koreans or protecting other Middle Eastern countries – wouldn’t other countries be wrong in protecting us if we needed their help? — Since this is the policy we’re following, wouldn’t that make respect worthless even if we were in a situation where we needed it.
The other problem is that I see no reason to believe Iran cares whether we help their economy or not. The Soviets actually disliked the idea of dying – the whackos who we’re fighting get a kick of it.
They want to kill the infidel and bring about the 12th Imam, the price of oil be damned.
WAL – good points that I was thinking myself as I typed the previous post.
The question in my mind is – if we leave them alone will they calm down? If, say, Iran becomes the major power in the Middle East, would they not want to prosper?
My take (have no idea what Ron Paul thinks here) is to get out of the Middle East as a whole, tell them to sort out their own problems, and if they mess with us one iota we nuke the whole place.
Historically, the U.S. has not been one to want to get involved in helping other countries until after WWII. The U.S. did everything it could to stay out of fighting in WWII (while providing aid to allies) until our hand was forced due to Pearl Harbor.
I’m not a strict isolationist, but I do think the U.S. has to mind its business a little more. It’s not just the Middel East that hates us. Most of Europe does (at least our foreign policy).
I’m not sure we can truly get out of the Middle East, but I do believe we need to move to less involvement (and as little as possible), as opposed to more. As long as we are there they will want to kill us there and in our own country anyway.
Like I said – we leave and they mess with us, we nuke the whole place and have all the free oil we want. Some might say that would not be a bad strategy – knowing they would mess with us if we left, we wipe them off the face of the earth and get all the oil we want.
I’d prefer that not happen, but I personally feel it is time to let them deal with their own problems and let us put that $1 trillion a year to use in the U.S. and let the chips fall where they may in the Middle East.
The question in my mind is – if we leave them alone will they calm down? If, say, Iran becomes the major power in the Middle East, would they not want to prosper?
I’m sure the Iranians (the people – or at least a large portion of them) want to prosper. I just don’t believe the government cares, especially given some of their policies lately which just about every prominent economist of theirs seems to be up in arms over.
I don’t believe these guys are rational. With the USSR the threat of retaliation and destruction meant something – with the Mullahs, the more the merrier. It’d be something I would entertain if I’d at least hear a guy like Bin Laden or the Ayatollah say: “the way to stop violence is take troops out of the Middle East”, “we’ll quit fighting if you leave”–Instead the only offer on the table is “the way to stop violence is convert to Islam and impose Sharia.”
The average Iranian is not nuts and is actually (ironically) probably more favorable to us than any other country in the Middle East. We’ve been waiting for a revolution for a few years now, though, and I wouldn’t count on it.
“Since WWII we have had three undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and lost all three.”
Psssst… hate to burst your bubble, but Congress approved military action in Iraq. That’s why the surrender crowd is bandying about with revoking that vote of approval. Your inability to grasp fact brings your support of Ron Paul into light. Retard.
Without resorting to your hate-filled name calling that is without a doubt the sign of an extremely insecure person who is probably impotent in more ways than one, I offer my retort:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html
you just called someone insecure and impotent. Not to mention the fact that you accuse every one who disagrees with you of being ‘hate-filled’. But thanks for not resorting to name calling
Also, sir:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Calling someone a retard is pretty hate-filled, so yes, I gave him back some of his own medecine.
The Lou Rockwell link shows that the war was unconstitional and how Ron Paul was EXACTLY right about what would happen before the unconstitutional war even started. It’s uncanny how right on he was in that link before the war.
Interesting how desertelephant call me a “retard” in this thread, but in the thread below this on gun control (with the pic of the guy pointing the 1911) he thanks me for my advice on a 1911:
“Thanks for the 1911 advice. The shooting wasn’t really what I was worried about. It was more maintenance and setting condition 1. I’ll look into maybe expanding into that beautiful piece of American steel.
BTW, this NEEDS to be a T-Shirt!
Posted by: DesertElephant on July 10, 2007 07:51 PM”
Unlike Ron Paul, Dancing Monkey nannies my fears and is willing to make the tough decisions for me.
BTW, support our http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=456_1177473318
Well, there are a lot of false fears being sold by politicians these days. It’s an old political trick. Get the people to fear something – anything, and trust the governemnt to protect you. And, of course, in order to protect you, the government needs more power, control, secrecy, and even more of your money. In turn your civil liberties and rights are eroded. The independence and the will of The People disappears due to fear mongering and the false belief that only the government can protect us. The government can help, but I’ll trust the will of the people before what passes as government today – assuming enough of the people are not already beaten into govenment sponsored submission. It’s that gosh darn Freedom message. Call me a sentimental fool, but as a free individual I’m sold on that message.
I do believe tmg191 is the only Ron Paul supporter I’ve seen capable of explaining himself calmly and reasonably. If all Ronulans were like him, Ron Paul’s campaign would have more credibility.
tmg, we might not agree with you here, but thanks for not flingin poo.
TMG 191,
I would consider supporting Ron Paul-or any others running for office who publicly stated:
The only globalism valid for the United States began in 1776 and is known as STATEHOOD. Any other alternative is unacceptable to the citizenry of the United States and is punishable as Treason.
anyone else, including Thompson is a no more than a “make do” candidate.
HKPistole,
You are right tmg191 is very polite and rational…which really makes this person unique among IMAO readers and writers.
Thanks to those who those recent psosts and to all those who believe open debate and dissent are good for our political process. Ron Paul still has some questions to answer for me – such as exactly how we handle the Middle East if/when we pull out.
Still, for now I like his fresh message and his back to the founding traditions of what government should (and should not) be. Paul and Thompson are actually quite similar in most areas except Iraq, where Thompson is hawkish – and I can respect that. If not for Paul (and he still has policy issues that need to be addressed for me), I’d certainly be for Thompson before any of the other candidates.
Thanks to those who those recent posts and to all those who believe open debate and dissent are good for our political process. Ron Paul still has some questions to answer for me – such as exactly how we handle the Middle East if/when we pull out.
Still, for now I like his fresh message and his back to the founding traditions of what government should (and should not) be. Paul and Thompson are actually quite similar in most areas except Iraq, where Thompson is hawkish – and I can respect that. If not for Paul (and he still has policy issues that need to be addressed for me), I’d certainly be for Thompson before any of the other candidates.
TMG, Just because you’re a retard politically doesn’t mean you can’t have a valid point about the 1911. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a Ron Paul supporter.
Thanks Scaredy Catt, you just made my point with that load of crap.
Any candidate who subsumes the interests of the United States to those of the United Nations is a traitor.