MSNBC takes shot at Ron Paul "supporters"

*rolleyes* Did you have anything intelligent to say, really?

Let's go thru RP's analysis of why OBL attacked us. It was because of our policies. Let's attack the points that OBL specifically attach himself to:

The 1982 israel/lebanon war. Started by lebanon because they attempted to assassinate someone. OBL blames us and Israel for this conflict. If RP gives credence to this; then he believes Israel should not defend themself against attack. Do you believe this?

Another reason was the 1991 Gulf war. Sanctions were imposed by the UN. Saddam, if he had followed the sanctions; received money for trading oil. Instead he used the money to enrich himself. He caused the suffering in Iraq during those years, but hording money for himself and his wonderful children. Do believe that the sanctions caused this or was it Saddam? If its the former, then why was Saddam making oodles of money while his people starved? If its the former, why are we being blamed for Saddam's actions?

Further, some of the terrorists said they joined the attack because of suffering in Bosnia. The US went into Bosnia to -help- the muslims. But they used this as a reason to attack us. Does this make sense?

Which of these 9/11 reasons makes sense to you or Ron Paul? Please let me know.

Where did I type this? It doesn't even sound like my sentence structure.

So; are you agreeing with the point, but disagreeing with the phrase I'm using. Is that your point here? What is a better word for it? Let me know and I'll happy to offend you a little less

Which is exactly my point. RP (and many democrats) are acting like abused women. I'm sorry. We didn't mean to do it. I'll stop; please don't hit me again. Sounds a lot like the democrat position on this situation to me. Doesn't it to you?

 

The people of this country should have the say and I think it is pretty heavily on the side of keeping our military and bases on our soil. Most Americans do not want to be, or pay to be, the worlds police force.

But your whole argument in this thread is simply ludicrous. The exact lure and attraction of people to Ron Paul as a candidate is that he distances himself from politics as usual. People are drawn to that, the love him for his conviction and his unwavering stance. They like that he does not lower his standards and give favors to get his policies passed. They like that he has a Constitution "litmus" test when deciding the direction of his policy. This is why people like him, like his fresh (yet in fresh it is traditional to the founding fathers) approach to government.

And so you being all so clever, use it, this that makes him unique, against him. You directly imply that he is less than a leader because he is unwavering in his conviction. It is simply a crock. You know it and everyone else that gives a fvck knows it as well. The cat and mouse game is now boring so I just will quit the game.

If I was trying to sell Suburbans and across the street they where selling Hybrids, my first selling technique would be to set the straw man trap. When people ask about a hybrid, I would simply point out the fact that it is not a real automobile because it fails to go 0-60 in XX amount of seconds. Of course nobody ever really buys a hybrid to go 0-60 quickly but I need to sell these bloated Suburbans and I am becoming desperate.

Now that we have decided your "test" is bogus, proceed in attacking his legislation.

 

We have bases in Japan, Germany, France and tons of other countries. So you think Rp supports closing all those bases or is it just the ones where people might bomb us for having bases there? We also have nuclear weapons in Europe as well. I don't see Bin Laden whining about those, do you? Should be close those bases because someone might get in huff about it?

I've already disproven that "conviction" earlier. Did you forget to read that? Probably

He never proposed any that got out of committee. So there isn't much to debate, is there?

 

Call me crazy, but I'm with AGS "the tin foil man" on this one
If not, Romney seems to be my second favorite.

 

Don't worry, they will; it's all they have

 

But just think, if we pulled our military out of all these countries, how strong we would be. Think of the money and resources we would save. We could spend all that extra money on new and better weapons. Our military could be so strong we could fight the entire fucking world.

The majority of the world has already shown they aren't interested in being civilized, so let them kill each other. It's like trying to mediate a bloods and crips shootout. You're standing in the middle of the firing zone trying to scream at them saying lets all sit down and talk first, it's pointless. Savages will be savages, let them kill one another and get it over with.

If something happens that requires us to get in the middle, then so be it. But what's the use of just standing around with our thumbs up our asses in all these countries *INCASE* something happens?

Maybe I'm still venting and rebelling because of this amnesty bill, who knows. Bush really did a number on Americans this time.

 

New basses and expanding our military outward. And yes I do not think we need bases in Europe the ME and Asia(we may owe it to Japan to stay a little longer however)

Actually you didn't.

Oh wrong again. We can dissect his legislation and what it stands for all day. The meaning behind it may show a lot about him. We could also do it with your chosen candidate.....So what is the name of your "Suburban"?

 

You probably are; and that's quite justified. It's the shittiest legistlation to ever come out of Washington. Well, maybe that's a slight exagerration.

That is the libertarian point of view, and I understand where its coming from. but the problem is; is that foreign matters come home to roost, all too often. Isolationism didn't work before WW1, during WW2 and it won't work again. It affects us economically - especially in the global environment. Look at oil, specifically. the more Iran postures, the higher oil gets and hits everyone here, slowing the economy. A war in say, honduras, affects us here because of products we get from there, too. So there is merit to foreign policy.

Especially if they aren't on our side in many cases right? I'd like to see bases moved to countries that support us. Out of France, Germany into others that are more friendly to us, etc. But I'm not sure we want a militarized germany again, do we?

Japan needs our bases because their constitution doesn't allow a large military force. And with NK on their border as well as China, they need some insurance don't they? Do you want to abandon Japan? Really? They are one of our closest allies.

 

Who makes that decision? Us and those countries? Or some terrorist? RP is suggesting the terrorist makes that decision for us. Right? OBL said we are occupying the holy land (bases in SA). If that argument has merit; those bases should go away right to make him happy? This argument gives OBL a veto over our foreign policy. I'm sure some would like that; would you?

As long as you say so. But in a single random bill I picked, I showed Paul betraying a closely held libertarian principle.

What legistlation? He hasn't had any break out of committee? He can't people to agree with him to even move it past 10 people in the House. That's not leadership, is it?

Why is it difficult? If he's a leader, he can get people to agree with him. If he's not, he cannot. It's not rocket science.

He's a seat warmer, worse a truthiness enabling seat warmer.

 

You failed to answer who your "Suburban" is. Again we do not need to have a bill pass to dissect it, look at its intended purpose. This in my opinion is a much better insight into a candidate than how many garbage pork filled bills some puppet pushed through.

BTW how many bills, in your opinion, does a presidential candidate have to pass into law before he is acceptable?

EDIT I forgot your first question (though I answered it before). We do....if we are still a republic.

 

Should I go to my garage take a picture of my cars; that are not SUVs for you? I actually like smaller cars. SUVs suck in my book, but thanks for assuming what I like to drive

One to look at would be nice though. While 10 year old butt prints on a congressional chair are nice, I'd like to see a little leadership on an issue, wouldnt you?

I'm not sure, but at least 1 significant piece of legistlation would be nice, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be good to know that your candidate cares about something -so much- that he's willing to fight for it until its passed? Has Paul demonstrated this - other than a seat warmer, what has he shown?

I have a performance record for Giuliana, Romney, Huckabee, T. Thompson and most of the others. Ron Paul not so much. Until you can produce some sort of record, all I can find about him is his strange allegiance to trutherism. Not too impressive.

 

Now I see you are only interested in one liners. Have fun in your campaign here.

 

Well, since you aren't informed about him, here is a link to his voting record. What is "constitutionally based" about some of these positions?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage

Seems to me that even his libertarian credentials are doubtful. But I'm only interested in one-liners, I know

 

The only part of that drivel I agreed with was when RP called middle eastern politics "irrational." And then he proceeded to claim there was a rational reason behind them attacking us.

The only common thread tying all the people who muslim terrorists have gone after together is that they aren't Muslim or their brand of Islam.

I also have yet to hear anything that we do special to the Middle East that we do no where else in the world.

 

I would suggest people look for themselves. People (all over the internet) are so afraid of Ron Paul they can only go on about "truther" and distort his record etc. They are deeply concerned

Topic 5 (health care)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm#2003-669

Topic 10 (gun control)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm#2003-124

 

To be honest call me what you like mate, I'm not bothered at all.

I'm just chuffed that are starting to see these corrupt manipulative idiots for what they are, to be honest I had you in the hopeless sheeple category like GT, d16man, lorien etc. but when I read your immigration thread I realised that you were starting to wake up.

As I have said before when you know how these corrupt bastards work it is oh so easy to figure things out.

Most of the crazy gang here in this P&R are so brainwashed they are completely beyond help, glad to see you are finally thinking "outside of the FOX."

 

At some point, RP is going to be faced with a critical decision. He's eluded to and solicited support from the delusional young angry white male crowd based upon opening new investigations into 9/11. This is the mainstay of the YAWMWLIQALSE crowd, so it goes without saying that they will support him. That's a given, that's been proven time and again.

However, if (yes, IF) he is cornered into making a stance on this issue, and he backs down and comes out and says these conspiracies are nuts, then he looses virtually his entire 1% base, that polls show he has now. Ooooohhhhh, a big whopping 1%

And suddenly the conspiracy nuts that loiter around here pimping him because alex jones told them too, will have to back-pedal. I can't wait!

AGS, you would know this question more than anyone...when is RP scheduled to speak on your daddy's show again?

 

lmao at AGS thinking he's converted ly2, AGAIN

 

Have to agree. One thing about ly2, he's always hated Bush, but he doesn't sell his country out to do it like some of the others here. He knows AGS buds are the enemy. Hell, AGS just started another thread in support of his terrorist friends.

 

Exactly, some people need to take lessons