vandy125

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2008 -> 07:45 AM) Ron Paul can say that HE didn't write those things, and that may be true. He also says he won't reveal who did write them, even if he knows. Well, the editor of those publications should know, and that would be Lew Rockwell. From Lew's wiki page: The company behind the newsletters only had Ron's family, Lew and 7 others listed as employees, so it shouldn't be too hard to know who wrote and/or approved what. Everyone else in this election cycle seems to be damned by the company they keep. Why not him as well? I had not seen that before. Thanks for the info. To be completely honest I'm not sure where I stand. I always try to put myself in someone else's position when issues come up, but I do not know what to think about it yet.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 27, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) Because he's Ron Paul and you should check him out. Unless you actually do, then ignore that part. Yep, that's right, you nailed it. Really, I love your points and the excellent discussion.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html What a racist scumbag. Just curious, but are there sources for this other than blogs? Below is a quote from his own web page on racism as well as information on the controversy from wikipedia. The wikipedia entry includes some credible sources including a quote from a President of a chapter of the NAACP saying he does not believe it. I would hope that you are basing these accusations on more than a blog. This is being completely honest and not having any green at all. I would like to see some credible sources on this. I have not yet seen any. Maybe I have some blinders on, but I try not to do that and want any information that I can get. Ron Paul Racism Issues Page Ron Paul Wikipedia

I hadn't really thought of it before, but I should have a ton of options open out in Iowa. I may do the same thing since it is just $25. I wonder if this one would work? HINYBRD

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) I tend to agree that a caucus may not be the best way to go. But it does make it exciting! It has some problems with it, but I for one really enjoyed hearing a lot of different people talk about what they liked about their candidates. As far as the Republican one went, the votes were written on pieces of paper. So, no one knew who you were voting for. I do like the Iowa Democrat method where it really forces you to talk and think about what a candidate brings to the table.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) Global warning or Ice Age. It all depends on what you read and what you want to believe. Personally, whatever happens I think it's going to be because of the sun more than anything we insignificant humans can do. I'll just go with some of A and some of B. So, our global warming will actually help us avoid the issue of lack of sun spots.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) He votes no because he knows that they will happen anyway. It is a safe vote for him, or anyone else who wanted to try that. At least safe for now. As far as getting their share, that is the standard response for any of them in regards to their earmarks/pork. If it is wrong for Hillary to earmark money for a Woodstock museum, it is wrong for him to earmark money to market shrimp. However, I do realize that in this instance if he stood his principles and didn't take any earmarks, he would probably be voted out of office real fast. Oh, and the earmarks are in place because he, and others, PUT them in place. They don't just magically appear from the earmark fairy. So, which is it, he puts them in place or not? You are saying both in this one statement right here. He votes against them all of the time. So, he is not the one putting them into place. The problem is the initial putting of the extra wasteful spending of money into place, not the taking of it once it is there. What should someone in that position do? If they are voting against the extra money be spent in the first place, but are getting overridden, should they just watch the money get wasted elsewhere, or should they waste the money where it does the people good that they represent? Either way, it is wasting money (which was voted against in the first place). Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm sure that you will let me know if I am.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 07:01 PM) While being the small-government champion, Ron Paul sure loves him some pork (earmarks)! http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpoliti.../tx.14.paul.pdf $400 million and 65 pages worth. Here is a nice response to that for you to read up on if you want: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html If you also go watch his Meet the Press interview on YouTube, he responds to it there in person. Basically, it comes down to this (from what I understand). The earmarks are already in place, and he is just getting his piece of the pie for who he represents. He votes "No" for any extra spending (hence the nickname of "Dr. No"). But, when the money is there, he gets his share. TIFWIW. If you just dig a little deeper there are answers to these "issues" that are commonly brought up.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) The Paul-bots have been pretty quiet the last week or so. I wonder why? As far as my viewpoint, I gave it a shot with the candidate that I believed in the most, and will see where it goes from there. Not much to it. I already casted my vote in the caucus and will be a delegate at the county convention.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Really, looked like a sense of humor to me. Even if it is, you know what they say about jokes that take a shot like that. There is always at least a little bit of belief behind it. I just wanted to point out that there are not any points of view that should be ignored. My comment probably came out more as a shot than I meant for it to be.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 05:57 PM) So, the majority can't say anything when they may see something wrong? Yep, sounds like a democracy to me!

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 11:42 AM) Don't have time to read the whole thread.. whats the latest with this 'rumor'? KW shot it down correct? Yep. Maybe this is just a bunch of noise, and another move is happening behind the scenes.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) Free agency is the only realistic way we can get better. We don't have any major trading options in our farm or anyone who can make an impact. Believe me, if I had it my way, we'd be like the Dodgers having several prospects to decide to call up or trade. There is another flaw with that thinking. When you start signing all kinds of FA, what do you lose? You lose those draft picks. So, going that way, you spend a whole bunch a cash and your farm system stays barren because you just gave up all of your picks to some other teams.

Hopefully the good turnout s a good sign of things to come with people getting interested in the political process.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 08:30 PM) I agree. Edwards or Hillarity will make me vomit. If Huckabee gets it, but Obama wins, I would vote Obama, probably. And that's scary. I agree with that too. Huckabee = win for Democrats.

Pretty good turn out to this tonight. They were expecting 30-35 people where I was at. We ended up with 130! Pretty interesting process. I ended up as one of the delegates for the county.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) I dont have the total history, but here it goes... Iowa is important because the media and the democratic party say it is. It's about momentum. In 2004 Kerry was I think 3rd or worse in iowa and NH. But he sprung ahead in Iowa and WON. The NH Primary a few days (maybe a week) later, Kerry won that. It's all about momentum. It doesnt mean everything, but it CAN. Iowa is important, but if the democratic party could make Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska more important if they really wanted to. Why is Iowa important? i dunno. Some argue they are the "real america" Or, a broad sampling that represents the rest of the country. I dont know how true that is. Here is some pretty good information on it from Wikipedia and from a Dayton News article. Iowa moved its caucus ahead of the New Hampshire primary in 1972. Those two are different events, but the Iowa caucus became the first nomination event in the country at that time. Iowa Caucus Dayton News

I'm looking forward to going! 6:30 pm! (Never thought that I would look forward to it)

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) you should receive a yearly report on your own earning credits from Social Security each and every year. I do and I'm 28. By the way, the more you work, the more you get. I've already qualified for SS payouts, but after 7 years of full time work I think my payout by 67 will be $1300 a month. Obviously that will grow as I contribute more. So someone getting a check for $2000 a month probably worked 15 years full time. I am right at that same age, but I'm not looking forward to getting SS at all. It is all going to be eaten up well before I hit that age. Sorry to derail the topic there for a bit. I just don't even look at the things that get sent out all that much anymore. This is a broke system.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 08:27 PM) Hugh Hewitt takes on the Huckster, with an open letter from a Arkansas Evangelical . http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/3339...19-cdca6181d5d4 He won't get my vote for the nomination since that is going to Ron Paul. So, I won't look into this all that much unless he does get the nomination, but one of the things I was worried about with him was that he was just using (or abusing) Christianity to get the Evangelical vote. Right now, I feel like Bush has done that same thing, and I think that Huckabee looks very similar to Bush.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) ABC and FOX news are not letting him in the debates. ABC had assigned a predetermined level of national polling which a candidate had to meet to be eligible to debate. Ron Paul didn't poll well enough. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/31/...bate-Limits.php The way that I read that was that FOX was not letting him on, but ABC was still to be determined. Maybe I read it wrong on the ABC side. Here is what I saw that led me to that:

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) He hit the receiver before the ball was touched, so its pass interference. It was a good call. So, it does not matter if he is going right after the ball when they bump? Just trying to understand the rule, not saying that it was a bad call.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 06:29 PM) Damn it. ball fumbled into endzone. Maybe I don't understand College football rules, but on the Pass Interference call in the end zone just now, doesn't the Illini defender have as much right to go after the ball as the receiver? If that was not called, it would have been an INT.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:56 PM) The results of this poll are very sad and makes me wonder if our fanbase is as smart as I thought. That seems like an arrogant statement to make. So, because a majority does not agree with you, they are not "smart"?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) Here is one reason Ron Paul does so good on internet polls. They set up a page linking them all together, and run it thru an anonamizer site so the IP addresses don't all get tracked back to the same place. http://ronpaulgw.googlepages.com/polls It's not just polls. I've heard many people on TV talk about getting inundated with emails whenever they show anything. I'm not sure that you can base your statement on one, googlepages web page...