Why I Do Not Support Ron Paul

Status
Not open for further replies.
IF Saddam had any ties whatsoever to Al-Bellgrande, please cite your source and I'll gladly read it. Expect me to be slightly wary if the source is the Project for a New American Century or something of that ilk .
Click to expand...

You're still joking, right? I get it.
The fact that Al Queda themselves state again and again that they must win in Iraq should be ignored. Ha ha ha.

You're not as funny as these guys, though.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
 
let me try to get caught up here...
Rob308:

On America bringing on 9/11 ourselves: I never said that Paul believed the American people were to blame; that's a straw man argument. What you say here pretty much squares with Paul's position, I agree; but I think the idea
that we should just stay in our little rooms and have no involvement in the mideast because we fear murderous retaliation is nothing short of cowardly. What Paul is advocating is basically "We'd better do what they say or they'll beat us up." I have very little patience for the notion that we deserved or invited 9/11 to ANY degree whatever. Taking that position reminds me of those who sympathize with street criminals because they are "poor and disadvantaged" and that rape victims were "asking for it". What you said and implied is just that, "that Ron Paul" said we (Americans) asked for the attacks of 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...
That's abundantly not true on any level. That assertion itself is one of an organized attack.
Click to expand...

"Who are the Jihadists?" Oh, please. Are you taking the leftist line that radical Islam isn't really a threat, just a "bumper sticker" hyped by the Administration? From some of your later comments, it seems so.

On Al Qaeda not attacking Canada, etc.: Yeah, just how many Balinese troops are in Iraq, anyway?

And in case you didn't notice, we weren't IN Iraq on 9/11/01. Any comment?
Click to expand...
Well, that's not really true. As any Army member knows, and I was one until a point in 2003, the US governmetn had troops in Iraq all though the decade of the 1990's. I guess you didn't know that.

Counterpunch is a deceptive, hyperpartisan, far-left crypto-Marxist rag. Enjoy. If you're a devotee, it explains why you think radical Islam is no greater a threat than traffic accidents. To Counterpunch, there can be no greater threat to the world than George Bush. If that's your position, we have nothing to talk about.
Click to expand...
Oooh, cryto-Marxist. That's an interesting accusation considering your position as a neo-Conservative is the most Marxist position on this forum. A typical Marxist ploy, accuse those in opposition to you as being what you are.

The Nazis merely wanted to conquer the world: they didn't want to force conversion to their religion, impose repressive religious laws, and dictate every detail of every person's daily life. They did not use suicide bombers against civilian innocents in PREFERENCE to military targets, and they did not raise their children to idealize and admire mass murderers of women and children.
Click to expand...
This is a joke, right? The NAZI's, aka National
Socialists (aka neocons of Germany) did everything to convince the public of the dangers posed by various entities opposed to their goals. It's surprising to see some JEWS take the samee positions as the NAZI's took with regard to foreign policy.

Al Qaeda had high-level contacts with Saddam from at least the early 90s;
Click to expand...
No, that is an outright lie. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that proves this. Why are you lying about this?

he sponsored terrorist training camps, put up AQ leaders in luxury suites and paid for their medical care, and his Iraq was the first place AQ leaders ran when in trouble. Read the papers. Sorry--papers other than Counterpunch.
Click to expand...
A silly post.

Yes, the Kurds are doing very well. Thanks to us. Or did you forget that?

Yes, all of that is already happening. Is your solution to let it get much worse?

True, AQ hasn't been doing well lately--because of the "surge", of course, but you wouldn't care to acknowledge that, would you? If we summarily leave--which even the Dems no longer advocate--do you think they wouldn't come back in force?
Click to expand...
A silly assertion. Every summer the US government has had troops in Iraq has seen a diminished Freedom Fighter activity level in opposition to the US government. This fall, as has already been observed, the Freedom Fighter activity against the occupation has grown stronger.

Gosh, yes; all those laws could be abused. Can you document any actual cases of that? Sorry, alleged "abuses" of enemy combatants don't count. This is called a "war".
Click to expand...
The court cases that have been files are documentation enough. Otherwise, why don't you volunteer yourself as a test detainee for Gitmo?

I think I explained why total isolationism is madness. Odd that you didn't notice, or respond to my explanation.
Click to expand...
Your assertion is not sustainable logically.

Car accidents? Are you serious? We should just treat terrorism as a nuisance and otherwise ignore it?
Click to expand...
Er, no, it should be treated as a police matter unless otherwise dictated. If the national police, the
FBI, had acted responsibly, the 9/11 terrorists would have failed. Then where would your arguments be? On the street corner.

If you are consistent in your beliefs, you must not own a gun. The proper response to street crime is to hide in your house and not go out and "provoke" the criminals who have legitimate gripes about economic disparities in our society, right?
Click to expand...
That's a non sequitur.

(Well, THAT was an hour I'd like to have back...)

Pat H:

"Solidly conservative"?? Cut and run? Abandon our allies? "Neocons" are socialists? Are you nuts?
Click to expand...
How about you use facts in your rebuttal instead of teenagerist ad hominems?

Wait a minute--"Goad" FDR into WWII? You think we shouldn't have gone?
Click to expand...
That's for another thread.

I think I'll skip over the rest, since you're basically ignoring my reasoning and saying "You're wrong because Dr.
Paul says so and he's real smart and would be a better President than Thomas Jefferson." As far as dissecting my post, you really haven't shown me much.
Click to expand...
Reasoning? I'm waiting with bated breath for that.

Actually, one is inclined to dismiss you as a bit of an extremist, considering some of your remarks. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you might start by answering a straight question: Do you think we should have stayed out of WWII? If not, how does that square with your ideal of "non-intervention"?
Click to expand...
Read the Constitution. Discussion of World War II are outside the scope of this thread.

I will stop to note that you DON'T explain how Paul would get his massive restructuring of the Federal government through Congress. Why is that? If there's a way, please tell us. I somehow don't think that his having served ten terms in Congress is going to do it. If he knows all about how Congress works, fine; how's he going to get it done? What's his legislative plan? I haven't heard him address that at all. Have you?
Click to expand...
You merely need read his web site and his writings for the last 25 years. He's been prolific and consistent.

Why is Paul's pie-in-the-sky, trust-me agenda have a hope in Hell of ever being passed? If there's no answer to that but "He's right on principle," he's a waste of time.
Click to expand...
His campaign is other than your description. That you feel compelled to state it in those terms speaks loudly of your ethics, only.
 
It's going to be a very long election year, isn't it?

Since the debate, when was the last time Paul's candidacy was mentioned by any major media outlet? Seriously, I think the web boards is about the only place I see him mentioned, for good or ill. Does he even matter, regardless of whether or not you agree with him?
 
cnorman18 said:
I share your sentiments to some degree, but I fail to see how voting for an UNelectable candidate helps much, either.

Remember? A vote for Perot turned out to be a vote for Clinton. Substitute "Paul" for "Perot", and nothing has changed except the Clinton--and I think this Clinton will be even worse. Bill was only dedicated to power and poon. Hillary is dedicated to the ideas of Karl Marx.
Click to expand...

and what about the "republican revolution" in congress that ive heard about? i was just a wee pup when all that went down and i didnt really care about politics (and prolly wasnt old enough to completely grasp it anyway), but i heard there was quite the conservative movement after the perot debacle. whos to say this could not happen again? a republican congress could possibly be better than a republican presidency, especially once you consider the fact that if hillary gets elected, our foreign policy really wont change much.

also, paul has stated that he will not run as a third party in the general election. i believe him, but i suppose you never know. also, anybody who writes him in wasnt going to be voting for the republican candidate anyway.
 
It's going to be a very long election year, isn't it?

Since the debate, when was the last time Paul's candidacy was mentioned by any major media outlet? Seriously, I think the web boards is about the only place I see him mentioned, for good or ill. Does he even matter, regardless of whether or not you agree with him?
Click to expand...
What time do you have?

Seriously, Ron Paul has been on major media all week. If you need video clips, please say so.
 
leif said:
Since the debate, when was the last time Paul's candidacy was mentioned by any major media outlet?
Click to expand...

either yesterday or the day before.

leif said:
Seriously, I think the web boards is about the only place I see him mentioned, for good or ill. Does he even matter, regardless of whether or not you agree with him?
Click to expand...

this is just more of the circular reasoning that we have heard so much of.

he is unelectable
why is he unelectable?
because people wont vote for him
why wont people vote for him?
because hes unelectable
why is he unelectable?...etc

if you disagree with him, thats fine. but not voting for someone because "hes unelectable"...that is truly throwing away your vote.
 
Fine, go vote for him, have fun with your logic.

Just when he doesn't win squat, which will be the case, don't come crying about how nobody wanted to play the same game as you. The man is unelectable.

If he gets anywhere close to winning within the current campaign, I'll be back to eat my words.
 
leif said:
Fine, go vote for him, have fun with your logic.
Click to expand...

my logic? lol.

leif said:
Just when he doesn't win squat, which will be the case, don't come crying about how nobody wanted to play the same game as you. The man is unelectable.
Click to expand...

i will not come whining to anyone. i will be happy that i made the right decision, and sad that not enough other people saw it the same way.

leif said:
If he gets anywhere close to winning within the current campaign, I'll be back to eat my words.
Click to expand...

you can if you like, but i will not be the one to feed them to you. im sure we will be too busy discussing how terrible it is that he actually won to worry about that ;)
 
WildsosadtheyhavetouseashominemsAlaska
Click to expand...

I have yet to deploy an argumentum ad hominem. I merely point out that you have made no argument with which to contend.

SpectresosadtheyhavetousestrawmanfalliciesBlofeld
 
Pat H

Well, let's see: You call me a neocon, a Marxist, silly, illogical, unethical, and a liar, and imply that I'm ignorant and cowardly, while throwing in that tired old leftist canard about "JEWS" (in caps) behaving like Nazis--and then accuse me of using "teenagerish ad hominem"!

At the same time, you refuse straight out to answer my perfectly germane question about "non-intervention" in WWII (the reason for which refusal is embarrassingly obvious), and clumsily dodge my question--again perfectly germane to the discussion--about Paul's legislative plan, vaguely referring me to his "writings" and declining to give even a brief synopsis. One might reasonably conclude, of course, that there is none.

I think we're done here.

Have a nice day.
 
?

That wasn't the issue.

Pat H was touting Paul's 'non-interventionist" policies, and I asked if he (Pat H) therefore thought we should have entered WWII. By any logically consistent application of that policy, the answer should have been "no".

Such an answer would, of course, have been morally (if not logically) indefensible, and so it was not given.

Or so it seems logical to conclude...
 
Just one question, when Ron Paul doesn't get elected are we going to have four years of threads discussing what he would do different and how much better it would be if he were president?
 
Well, I certainly don't expect any complaints about the "electable" candidate that would then be president.

Edited to add: from the anti-RPs
 
Since, with few exceptions, all of which occured since the attacks on 9/11/2001; there were no attacks by radical islamists in America. All of the attacks against US government property prior to 2001 were in direct response to US government attacks against muslim countries either directly or by surrogate countries. The CIA and many others have documented these facts irrefutably.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting a slew of attacks by jihadists from Sirhan Sirhan's murder of Bobby Kennedy, through the first World Trade Center Bombing, to the Millenium Bombing Plot stopped at the Canadian border.

The USA has every right to pursue its interests in the Middle East just like any other part of the world, and has acted many times to help Muslim nations and peoples in places like Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.

BTW, Just which US attack against a Muslim Country do you feel, or think Dr. Paul feels, excuses the acts of genocide committed by the Muslim radicals on 9/11/2001? Can you be specific?
 
Well, let's see: You call me a neocon, a Marxist, silly, illogical, unethical, and a liar, and imply that I'm ignorant and cowardly, while throwing in that tired old leftist canard about "JEWS" (in caps) behaving like Nazis--and then accuse me of using "teenagerish ad hominem"!
Click to expand...

No way! Did I miss more Paulistic anti semitism again? Dang, nothing is worse than BORING anti semitism. Neocons, Israel...hey lets whisper...Wolf-o-witz.....


SpectresosadtheyhavetousestrawmanfalliciesBlofeld
Click to expand...

Hows this for an argument...$500 on the table says Ronnie doesnt win, place or show....

Hey any folks wanna help me and really make it worth their while...whats it gonna take...$5K? Naw, even his acolytes KNOW he isnt going to win LOL...

Just one question, when Ron Paul doesn't get elected are we going to have four years of threads discussing what he would do different and how much better it would be if he were president?
Click to expand...

My god I forgot about that...but maybe the mods will put him in the same category as religion and reproductive rights AFTER the convention....


WildmaybeweneedanareyousickofronpaulthreadAlaska TM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top