A gas station near me had gas at $3.00 per gallon yesterday. This morning, it is $3.25.
$4 per gallon, here we come!!!!!!!
$4 per gallon, here we come!!!!!!!
OT: Iran Fires A Missle Yesterday.......Gas Goes Up $.25 Today
- Thread starter ExtremeDog
- Start date
- Status
A gas station near me had gas at $3.00 per gallon yesterday. This morning, it is $3.25.
$4 per gallon, here we come!!!!!!!
$4 per gallon, here we come!!!!!!!
is possibly what cost him Iowa. He has good points and certainly couldnt be "bought", but he is a fool on many issues. Namely Iran and the Gold Standard. Iran because his view is childlike and dangerous and the gold standard because there isnt enough gold in the world to go back to the gold standard at this point. It is a good idea in theory but not possible. His position on Iran on the other hand is just plain idiotic. Simply look at north korea and how we HAVE to negotiate with them because of the nuke. They cant even feed their own people, but we have to sit at a table with them and have discussions for ONE REASON. A FUKN NUKE...even if it is only 4 or 5 of them they are pointed at S Korea, and we cannot take that chance. Now imagine if Iran had one or two. Sheesh...those fukrs and their kind blow themselves up just to kill others. What makes you or dr. paul so sure they wont use a fukn nuke.
Take Iran out of Pauls platform, and i might vote for him because we need someone that will actually do what they say.
Take Iran out of Pauls platform, and i might vote for him because we need someone that will actually do what they say.
In the name of "going green," they've managed to simultaneously force us to use a fuel that is more expensive, contributes more to global pollution, and is more corrosive to enginesand at the same time drive up the cost of food and create food shortages worldwide.
If you disagree with Ron Paul on the gold standard and Iran, you disagree with him on everything.
but the point is that anyone with a nuke is dangerous. Even more so, they would probably be less likely to try to use a nuke against us if we would stop agitating them. Take a look at a map of military installations in the Middle East and tell me if we wouldn't be pissed as hell if Russia had thousands of troops and bases lined up along the Mexico/Canada borders. As far as the gold standard, I agree it's probably too late, but the whole point is that it is unconstitutional; that's not up for debate. It is EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution that only gold or silver can be used as legal tender.<div>
</div><div> You would choose to not vote for Ron Paul over his stance on Iran, this ONE stance, but who else is there to vote for? He might have a view you disagree with on Iran, but every other candidate is much more dangerous for this country because they are sleezy politicians who will do NOTHING to change the system. Paul is the only TRUE conservative that truly recognizes and cares (and has for years) the financial threat that Wall Street and DC corruptness pose to this country. Gingrich? Is that a 17ing joke? Romney? Get real.</div>
</div><div> You would choose to not vote for Ron Paul over his stance on Iran, this ONE stance, but who else is there to vote for? He might have a view you disagree with on Iran, but every other candidate is much more dangerous for this country because they are sleezy politicians who will do NOTHING to change the system. Paul is the only TRUE conservative that truly recognizes and cares (and has for years) the financial threat that Wall Street and DC corruptness pose to this country. Gingrich? Is that a 17ing joke? Romney? Get real.</div>
agree with him about much of what he says about the Fed, much of his view of the Constitution, Self Responsibility, smaller government, legalization of some things, less regulation, scaling back our worldwide bases, etc etc...The gold standard is stupid because it cannot be done in todays world, and the iran position is assinine. Bomb their refinery and nuke sites, and they will become irrelevant in months.
I agree with about 70% of what he says. The other 30% doesnt really matter because as he says himself he cant do it alone. However, iran is that 1% that would be a catasrophic decision that scares folks. His flipant stance on them is scary. The main responsibiliy of the president and govt is to protect us. A nuclear iran far from does that.
I agree with about 70% of what he says. The other 30% doesnt really matter because as he says himself he cant do it alone. However, iran is that 1% that would be a catasrophic decision that scares folks. His flipant stance on them is scary. The main responsibiliy of the president and govt is to protect us. A nuclear iran far from does that.
because that would at least give you a semi-valid exuse for your naiveté. Comparing our military presence in a severely instable region of the world where we have close allies who look to us for protection to having Russia camped along our borders completely fails any logic of anyone more than 20 years old. We are not there to agitate Iran, but to attempt to keep some sort of semblance of stability in the region (which appears to be largely failing at this point). However, history has proven that if you leave madmen alone (i.e. appease or not agitate them), they are emboldened to greater acts of lunacy, not to calming down. Exhibit A: Adolf Hitler whose views on the people of Israel closely reflects those of the leader of Iran.
Secondly, labeling Paul a conservative demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the foundational principles of conservatism. Paul is a libertarian and there are stark philosophical differences between the two. Romney certainly isn't a conservative. Gingrich seems to have fallen away from his conservative roots that got him the speakership in 94, so I won't disagree with you that neither one is a conservative. But, Paul is not a conservative either.
Secondly, labeling Paul a conservative demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the foundational principles of conservatism. Paul is a libertarian and there are stark philosophical differences between the two. Romney certainly isn't a conservative. Gingrich seems to have fallen away from his conservative roots that got him the speakership in 94, so I won't disagree with you that neither one is a conservative. But, Paul is not a conservative either.
and my aunt called and said it hadnt been running right for a month or so. Would run fine for 5 minutes then slowly idle down and stop running. I asked if they were putting ethanol in it, and of course she said she had no idea. I said go ride around until you find a gas station without ethanol and fill it up there. She found one. Fills it up, and it runs like a top. As you said, our govt at its finest.
- Status