Accountable
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Wasn't there another candidate at the debate? :humm:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/#.TwpHyHrpiSp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/#.TwpHyHrpiSp
Let's Play "Where's Ronpaul"
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
31Replies
-
562Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
hehehehehehehehehehe....... Slam!
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20120109/278884_ron-paul-2012-went-photo-goes-viral.htm
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20120109/278884_ron-paul-2012-went-photo-goes-viral.htm
cam elle toe
Banned BY User's Request
Funneh. I love Carl Hiaasen and got this on his FB feed.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/07/2578996/mitt-wins-unless-he-blows-it.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/07/2578996/mitt-wins-unless-he-blows-it.html
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Truth Squad: Gingrich's claim that he was not eligible for the draft is true
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:35 AM EST, Sun January 8, 2012
Editor's note: Part of the CNN Republican debate fact-checking series
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:35 AM EST, Sun January 8, 2012
Editor's note: Part of the CNN Republican debate fact-checking series
(CNN) -- Rep. Ron Paul challenged Newt Gingrich on whether or not he asked for a deferment during the Vietnam War as the two participated in Saturday night's Rebublican candidates' debate in New Hampshire. "I think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren't -- they have no right to send our kids off to war and not be even against the wars we have," Ron Paul said.
The Statement: "The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question." - Newt Gingrich
The facts: Gingrich turned 18 in 1961, as U.S. involvement in Vietnam was escalating. But he continued his studies, getting an undergraduate degree in 1965, his Master's in 1968 and his doctorate in 1971.
According to the Selective Service, prior to 1971 "a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress in virtually any field of study. He could continue to go to school and be deferred from service until he was too old to be drafted." [I guess that's what Paul referred to as "three or four or even five deferments"]
In addition, the fact that Gingrich had two daughters -- born in 1963 and 1966 -- gave him a III-A classification, putting him far back in the line of people who might have been called to serve.
Verdict: True, but incomplete. Gingrich is correct, that he was not eligible for the draft. But that does not mean he could not have been one of the 3 million Americans who ultimately served in the war.
That fact seems to be something he has considered. "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over," he told Vanity Fair in 1989.
The Statement: "The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question." - Newt Gingrich
The facts: Gingrich turned 18 in 1961, as U.S. involvement in Vietnam was escalating. But he continued his studies, getting an undergraduate degree in 1965, his Master's in 1968 and his doctorate in 1971.
According to the Selective Service, prior to 1971 "a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress in virtually any field of study. He could continue to go to school and be deferred from service until he was too old to be drafted." [I guess that's what Paul referred to as "three or four or even five deferments"]
In addition, the fact that Gingrich had two daughters -- born in 1963 and 1966 -- gave him a III-A classification, putting him far back in the line of people who might have been called to serve.
Verdict: True, but incomplete. Gingrich is correct, that he was not eligible for the draft. But that does not mean he could not have been one of the 3 million Americans who ultimately served in the war.
That fact seems to be something he has considered. "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over," he told Vanity Fair in 1989.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I couldn't find the vid, but I remember as a kid in the late 60s early 70s, there was an anti-war ad that had two guys that were supposed to be the President and the Soviet leader getting into a ring together to fight. It resonated with me as a kid and resonates with me today.
Indeed. I was thinking that w/Dubya & saddam. Had they just gotten into the ring w/each other and put it on PPV....... Hell, I'd have paid damn good money to see that fight.
But, that wouldn't have made the MIC/Halliburton/Blackwater, et al any money at all now would it have? It will pay for itself they said... Yeah......
But, that wouldn't have made the MIC/Halliburton/Blackwater, et al any money at all now would it have? It will pay for itself they said... Yeah......
It's on CNN's front page... W/these results, it won't be up long 
Which GOP candidate do you want to win the presidential nomination?
Paul
39%
11031
Romney
29%
8220
Gingrich
19%
5450
Santorum
12%
3378
Total votes: 28079
This is not a scientific poll
Which GOP candidate do you want to win the presidential nomination?
Paul
39%
11031
Romney
29%
8220
Gingrich
19%
5450
Santorum
12%
3378
Total votes: 28079
This is not a scientific poll
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
It's on CNN's front page... W/these results, it won't be up long
Which GOP candidate do you want to win the presidential nomination?
Paul
39%
11031
Romney
29%
8220
Gingrich
19%
5450
Santorum
12%
3378
Total votes: 28079
This is not a scientific poll
Wtf? :24:
Well, I'll be darned, it's still up:
Paul
32%
40115
Romney
32%
39971
Gingrich
22%
27229
Santorum
13%
16660
Cod, that's one of the reasons I like him. His stances have remained consistent his whole career. How refreshing to have a candidate that appears to not be able to be bought.
I saw a Rassumsen poll on the news this morning. One of their lovely pie charts. I do believe it was 33% for Mitt, 31% for Newt & 11% for Santorum. ah........ That left 25% w/out mention. Can't mention Ron Paul..... The stuff like that just cracks my ass up at the obvious crap.
Paul
32%
40115
Romney
32%
39971
Gingrich
22%
27229
Santorum
13%
16660
Cod, that's one of the reasons I like him. His stances have remained consistent his whole career. How refreshing to have a candidate that appears to not be able to be bought.
I saw a Rassumsen poll on the news this morning. One of their lovely pie charts. I do believe it was 33% for Mitt, 31% for Newt & 11% for Santorum. ah........ That left 25% w/out mention. Can't mention Ron Paul..... The stuff like that just cracks my ass up at the obvious crap.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
The best presidents in history are forgotten footnotes. We only remember the power-hungry narcissists who routinely abuse the Office and routinely violate the Constitution.
Johnfromokc
Active Member
:24: I voted in this poll this morning:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/poll-pick-winner
Newt was winning. When I came home from work and checked, Ron was leading. I just checked again and *pouf*, the poll has been wiped and all the comments are gone... Ya know, it's pretty freaking funny and pretty freaking sad at the same time. And really freaking blatantly obvious. Which reminds me of this pic I saw the other day:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/poll-pick-winner
Newt was winning. When I came home from work and checked, Ron was leading. I just checked again and *pouf*, the poll has been wiped and all the comments are gone... Ya know, it's pretty freaking funny and pretty freaking sad at the same time. And really freaking blatantly obvious. Which reminds me of this pic I saw the other day:
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members