I agree. We can find out exactly what he stands for and he makes it quite clear. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do it. Don't beat me again. - RP's abused wife foreign policy message. Get over the fact that you support him on a small government level. We know you don't. You enjoy his trutherism, and apparently his blame america-ism too. Without one (or both of those), you wouldn't give RP the time of day, Briant.
No, I am stating that people support Ron Paul as a potential Republican leader based on his statements while said on television. It's pretty straightforward. You don't need to spin it. Yes, he was also criticized by Fox. Fox also criticized other candidates -- or are YOU suggesting that Fox didn't criticize any other Republican candidates except for Paul? Are you saying Fox News doesn't or shouldn't post critical views of all candidates? It's certainly interesting how you can claim to know all these things about me . Of course, you're wrong about several of your assumptions.
Why the need to lump everyone that has an interest in what Ron Paul says as "9/11 truthers"? Are you that simple-minded that you cannot grasp that people share a different idea about candidates but you need to brand them with a disparaging remark? It reduces your side of the arguement when you cannot stand on the strength of your beliefs and instead must resort to diversions. You know, I have seen what a woman looks like when she is beaten by someone she loves. The same for a child too. The fact that you need to compare an assault on a woman to not liking a particular candidate shows how narrow-minded and one-sided you really are. I may not like Bush but I would never compare him to an abuser. I can draw a distinction between a person and their political views. Comparing someone's politicial stance to an act of domestic violence, how low can you get? Do you really disrespect someone suffering in one of those kind of relationships? If you have seen what someone looks like after a violent episode in one of these relationships and still draw the comparion to Ron Paul's policies then I really feel sorry for you. Why don't you just complete the image and suggest that people that listen to Ron Paul deserve to be raped?
I was stating how he got owned for those statements. Did you see the clip? alex jones sure seems to be pimping him out to the conspiracy sheep Seems they are having a hard time rationalizing how and why they are suddenly interested in Fox news and voting Republican! Cracks me up
What's disparaging about being a "truther" You are one. AGS is one. so are others here. In fact, virtually everyone in this forum who supports Paul (from the people I've seen post their support) is a truther. Are you saying its a negative? I'm saying he's a truther, because at worst he -is- and a best he's an enabler. Which would you prefer me to call him? A truther or a truther enabler?
Of course I did. And what I saw was no different than a journalist being critical of a candidate. If you're suggesting that the media was never critical to the candidates in '04 then you have a short term memory. Why are you connecting what Ron Paul said to what Alex Jones says? If it was so blatantly obvious then don't you think Fox News would be saying the same thing? It's not and Fox News isn't doing it.
They are sloganeering because they can't argue the points. When this type of tactic works, the country is in trouble.
um, because it illustrates a point? You are not proud that alex jones is giving the conspiracy sheeple a candidate to vote for?
I'm not a truther. This is my point of what I have been saying: there are a number of people on here that don't like the politican views of a poster and then leap to assumptions about that person. If you like Hillary you must be a fascist, if you like Ron Paul you must believe in a 9/11 conspiracy...why can't you debate the topic at hand and feel this need to "know" what your opponent believes and thus remove whatever they have to say from your consideration? I also saw that ignored the part of my post about making you feel shame comparing Ron Paul to someone that hits a woman in a domestic abusive relationship. What wrong, are you now feeling embarassed about making that comparison? You said it, not me.
Let me draw a very easy comparison for you: President Bush believes that an invisible, supernatural force called him into the White House. He believes in God and he has stated that his belief influences the political decisiona that he makes while in office. Even though there is not one shred of proof that Bush's God exists. If you want to start calling political leaders out on personal beliefs in things that they cannot prove then you better be prepared to do it fairly and for ALL leaders. If you want to open up a can of worms about whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not then it's fair game to debate whether a man that believes in invisible and so far unproven imagainary being is fit to run the country. And if you draw a difference between the two then you are really splitting hairs. What the matter, you question the mental competance of someone that believes in a 9/11 conspiracy and not someone that believes God told them to do it? It's a very slippery slope and I choose to leave personal beliefs at the table when considering candidates and instead focus on what's real to me: policies, business and moral/ethical factors. If you want to include personal beliefs then practice what you preach and make it fair for all the leaders to be judged in your eyes.
The topic at hand is that RP's former Aid calls for his resignation BECAUSE he looks like a nut on stage, of which, the very "trutherism" played an important role. The hypocrisy here is, chant is asking people to argue the point and stay on topic. This IS the point, it IS the topic! Who needs a tissue?
Chant, I'll pause for a moment and let AGS give you some obligatory consoling and emotional understanding. That's important for him. I'll check back in a bit.
Do you even stop and consider how childish you sound when you feel this need to put down someone because their position contradicts yours? "obligatory consoling and emotional understanding"? I know this is just an internet message board but really, you don't have what it takes to debate the issue at hand when you use terminology like this.
And my point is that he looks no more a nut than any other candidate up there. In fact, even if I don't presently believe at this time that there was a 9/11 cover-up, the mere fact that in the past 30 years two Republican administrations (Nixon and Reagan) and one Democrat president (Clinton) felt the need to lie to the American people and try to cover-up their acts should make every American take pause and weigh the possibility that their government doesn't always have their best interests in heart. I listened to what Paul's former aid said and found it not relevant. Furthermore Paul didn't look frail and his hands weren't shaking, two more points that the ex-aid claimed against his former boss. It sounded to me more like spoiled grapes and a cheap shot against your ex-boss. And again, with the childish taunt.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Dondero - Bush was right, 05-03-03.htm A guy who thinks Bush is owed an apology from those questioning his foreign policy wants Ron Paul to resign Is this thread dead yet
That's your opinion. You are entitled to it. The topic and what it is about, is clear. In this case, you just happen to not like the topic and want to silence any views that agree with it. I'm not going to let you
How is offering a different opinion to yours comparable to me wanting to "silence" you? You do know what it means to silence someone, right? Hyperbole much? If you want to get back on the original topic fine because it certainly sounds like you're backing off big time from debating Bush's belief in God vs. Paul's belief in a 9/11 cover-up; good for you in recognizing a losing battle when you see it. Paul's ex-aid made several personal comments about Paul looking "old", "frail" and that his "hands were shaking" and used them to butress his call for asking Paul to resign. Personal and subjective points can't be used to support a claim that a candidate is not fit for office; that is like saying someone shouldn't run because I think that they are too black or too womanly. You might not have the same shocked reaction by saying someone is too old to run for office than you would get by saying they're too black but it's still a weak arguement. Paul's ex-aid's case is made weak by using those kinds of statements as evidence for his case. Furthermore, Paul is actually in the right by stating that 9/11 was caused by America to some degree. Our foreign policies have created a wave of anger and the terrorists have seized that and are using it to their advantage. The 9/11 commission backs Paul's statements -- it's just that several reactionary Republicans don't like to hear it because as soon as they do they THINK that what they're hearing is "We deserved 9/11." Deserve has nothing whatsoever to do with it; people hate us, right or wrong, and we better understand that instead of having an immediate knee-jerk reaction to it like the world is supposed to love America and give it flowers. Understanding why terrorists and governments are using America to fan hate and terror attacks is what we should be doing instead of trying to shame someone for stating a fact that we don't like to hear. That's the kind of thinking that got the world in the Second World War and Paul's ex-aid is using it as a tactic to shame Paul. How silly and how utterly ineffectual to helping America. Furthermore, I'm not blinded by partisanship that I can't see where American has made some mistakes with foreign policy. It seems that to some political zealots that recognizing your mistakes is more criminal an act than ignoring that they happened. Anyone that believes America is at no fault with its foreign policy is delusional or horribly naive. Every country on this planet makes mistakes because they are run by human beings. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that you may have had a part in the problem is irresponsible. Furthermore, I would say that anyone that labels someone giving honest criticism about America and its policies as "un-American" and a traitor is a coward themselves. It sounds like Ron Paul's ex-aid approaches that label.
Go back and read your posts. You sure do cry a lot. Reading through the rest of your "blame America first" response clearly tells why.
If you don't know the difference between crying and debating then it's your loss. Besides I thought that you wanted to talk about the original reason for this post. I brought up my rebuttal to your point (which is returning the topic back to the original post), made my observations and you ignored all of them and instead chose to focus on a personal attack. This is symptomatic of people that can't defend their position and instead have to resort to ad hominem attacks ("You sure do cry a lot.") In short you're getting owned.