i might be wrong but as i remember from reports is the order before they were on the ground was changed to kill, rather than dead or alive which was in place before. would need to reserach to confirm this.

Of course not. Certainly they could have been wrong in some instances.

Depends

Saying Obama made an ok call does not mean that every call the US military has ever made is correct. Does that seriously need explaining on a poker forum?

I am under the impression the opposite is true, but i might be wrong.

no but something is weird with a deep principle being applied one instance and then not in the next.

i agree with you though that the fact his location implied some regional protection from Pakistani authorities can differentiate this case in a way

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-pakistan-deal

Actually, only Paul thinks there is some deep principle involved. I'm not necessarily saying that going in was a snap call, just that Paul's thinking for why it was wrong are awful. About what I would expect from a creationist imo.

And I again might be wrong, but I thought KSM was largely found by Pakistanis, so secret strike was never even on the table. And it is risky to try to ask them about it since the only Pakistanis who knew OBL was in the compound with the same level of certainty that Obama had would have been complicit,

I think a TON of factors differentiate this case. the fact that he has been in hiding for so long also make a secret attack better imo.

Yes, yes, idk. We could speculate on a lot of stuff that Obama has done that Paul wouldn't do etc...If we had Pakistan's help, permission, or involvement I don't see a problem with the raid, but to raid another country in this instance is a bit ridiculous imo.

Ron Paul Speech At Republican Leadership Conference 6/17/11 (1/3)
Ron Paul Speech At Republican Leadership Conference 6/17/11 (2/3)
Ron Paul Speech At Republican Leadership Conference 6/17/11 (3/3)

Short Article and Interview with RP saying that Judge Napolitano could be a potential VP

oh to see a judge/biden debate.

Napolitano is great. I hope he takes over Glenn Beck's time slot (his show is over at the end of this month). That would be great for the campaign. The Judge promotes Paul on his show on FOX Business, but the viewership is tiny compared to the huge ratings that FOX News gets. It's also the exact demographic that needs to be reached.

If your target to be Ron Paul's supporters is Glenn Beck's audience then you're doing something wrong.

Do you expect him to have any chance of winning if he doesn't get votes from at least a decent portion of that crowd? Look at the voter demographics. ~60% of voters are 45+. That percentage is probably even higher for a GOP primary. Do you realize how many middle-aged/elderly Republican primary voters get ALL of their "news" from either FOX News or talk radio? A lot. You can't win an election just with internet support. Didn't 2008 prove that?

Sitting there and thinking "there's no point trying to convince those people" is dumb. If he doesn't convince any of them, he has no chance. Those people vote more than anyone.

The Judge is a strong fiscal conservative. They would listen to him. It would be very good for the campaign if he got that job.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyyI1EC5i2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAge5snIOlM

The Judge has influenced Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck. If he can do that, who knows what he could do if he was on the most watched cable news channel for an hour every day.

RLC Straw Poll results:

Bachmann 191
Cain 104
Gingrich 69
Huntsman 382
Johnson 10
McCotter 2
Palin 41
Paul 612
Pawlenty 18
Roemer 9
Romney 74
Santorum 30

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...66-503544.html


Obviously the mainstream media will insist this means absolutely nothing, though. If anyone else had won it they'd go on and on about how big of a deal it is.

Do you think this is a big deal? (Did you follow the campaign in 2008?)

Do I think the RLC straw poll is a big deal? No, I don't think it's a huge deal or anything. My point is just that it's ridiculous how they try to marginalize any small win he picks up. And no, I didn't follow the 2008 campaign closely. I'm a relatively new supporter.

CNN just covered it. They interviewed a guy at the conference to get the results, and here's what he said (paraphrased):

"Ron Paul won...he always does well at these straw polls. But the big news is Jon Huntsman, who came in second...blah blah Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann..."

The big news is the guy who came in second? Really? I guess the big news is the performance of anyone not named Ron Paul.

I'm not surprised or anything, though.

i love it. the big news isn't that the anti establishment candidate came in first by a ridiculously large margin.

jfc.

haha ya every article about a poll I've read has basically ignored Ron Paul and given his results as % only usually at the very end (and he's always done very well)

Headline:

hmm think you are nit-picking, this is the best coverage I've seen for him and pretty accurate analysis.

re: evolution... wasn't he a doctor? i'd say he obv believes in evolution, but figures he'd alienate people that he doesn't need to alienate by talking about it.

to me, this is much different than alienating the people that he normally does by taking his principled stands. those are things he actually cares about, it's what his career/mission is all about. evolution/creationism is not - he thinks that politically, it's a non-issue.

also, just read the whole thread. i have a degree in political science and would be interested in working for his campaign. where can i find out more?

ya him being a doctor makes it even harder to buy that he doesn't think evolution is real (or perhaps he just doesn't think its how man was created - or perhaps he thinks evolution is real but that the entire process was started as part of God's plan), but then again, i'm amazed that anyone who went to college doesn't think evolution is real.

but he is really old, so its possible i guess. my dad is the same age, grew up on a farm in greece, is a doctor, and he believes in evolution, so idk if the age thing is really an excuse.

edit: what, like a payed employee? GL.

if you just want to volunteer, should be easy to do that.

volunteering. to be paid i'd have to be like a campaign manager or something, and i don't have the experience for that

MSM is status-quo oriented and heavily biased towards such candidates. Shocker right there.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/sign-up-as-volunteer/

I'd say just put in the "other" box what your qualifications are and what exactly you'd be willing to do.

How involved are you looking to be? Someone here would probably be able to find the campaign manager's contact info if you're wanting to get really involved.