PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul



Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 06:25 PM
Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It's surreal; it's just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty;

We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.

We're now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars--spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth.

A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit.

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.

The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking.

We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially.

Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-h20090519-66&person=400311

This is a good read!

Shannon
06-14-2009, 06:38 PM
Now you've done it.:eek:

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 06:41 PM
Now you've done it.:eek:
He lost me on the torture part but the rest is pretty good. I like the way he uses words. Some how I don't think he would be totally relient on teleprompters.

gator
06-14-2009, 07:13 PM
We had several of the jerkoff NeoCons on CU leave in 2007 because I posted a thread saying I thought RP was right on the economy and foreign policy issues. I am not really a RP supporter but I felt he was the only person that really understood why our country was going to hell in a hand basket.

You never heard so much crying in all your life. Of couse being swamped by Ron Paul supporters after I made the post didn't help a whole lot.

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 07:43 PM
We had several of the jerkoff NeoCons on CU leave in 2007 because I posted a thread saying I thought RP was right on the economy and foreign policy issues. I am not really a RP supporter but I felt he was the only person that really understood why our country was going to hell in a hand basket.

You never heard so much crying in all your life. Of couse being swamped by Ron Paul supporters after I made the post didn't help a whole lot.
I agree with about two thirds of Ron Paul. I was just impressed with the way he used his words in the speech more than anything. It was like poetry.

Jumpy
06-14-2009, 09:54 PM
I love Ron Paul. He doesnt kiss up to anyone.. unlike most politicians and their canned speeches.

ralph wiggum
06-14-2009, 10:02 PM
I love Ron Paul. He doesnt kiss up to anyone.. unlike most politicians and their canned speeches.

Then why are there a bunch of completely bat-shit crazy "9/11 troooth-ers" who associate with the Ron Paul camp?

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 10:08 PM
Then why are there a bunch of completely bat-shit crazy "9/11 troooth-ers" who associate with the Ron Paul camp?
I guess he'll take anyone’s money. A bad mistake in my book. And he reminds me of pat Buchanan in a lot of ways. I wouldn't vote for him but I won't throw away everything he says either. If I could do the last election again I would vote for Bob Barr.

Troll
06-14-2009, 11:03 PM
This thread won't end well. :D


He lost me on the torture part but the rest is pretty good. I like the way he uses words. Some how I don't think he would be totally relient on teleprompters.

I liked Ron Paul. I voted for him in the primaries. He annoyed me on a few issues, but he was, far and away, the most conservative Republican on the ballot which is precisely what doomed him - most Republican voters are only as conservative as the RNC tells them to be. You know, disagree with everything the Democrats say, vote straight ticket, you're conservative. RP proved that anti-neocon does not equal liberal, and I remain grateful for that.

I think what bothered me the most about RP was his supporters. Spamming sites and calling everybody stupid isn't the best way to garner support for your candidate.


We had several of the jerkoff NeoCons on CU leave in 2007 because I posted a thread saying I thought RP was right on the economy and foreign policy issues.

I think there was a bit more to it than that, but that did seem to be the "last straw" for many people. I was a little irked at that, because CU lost some good members (Franksolich, Rebelkev), but I stand by what I said a few months ago - CU has done nothing but improve since 2005.

ralph wiggum
06-14-2009, 11:10 PM
I guess he'll take anyone’s money. A bad mistake in my book. And he reminds me of pat Buchanan in a lot of ways. I wouldn't vote for him but I won't throw away everything he says either. If I could do the last election again I would vote for Bob Barr.

There are certainly some issues on which I agree with him on, at least during his campaign. The fringe wackos made any serious effort he had towards the Presidency fall flat.

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 11:14 PM
My vote will likely go to a third party candidate next presidential election. I just wish sombody would offer us a serious contender with a chance to win. The don't throw away your vote arguement doesn't cut it anymore. Every vote that has been placed for president after Reagan has been thrown away.

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 11:20 PM
There are certainly some issues on which I agree with him on, at least during his campaign. The fringe wackos made any serious effort he had towards the Presidency fall flat.
His talk of we shouldn't be in the Iraq war was dumb. Wether he was right or wrong that ship had sailed. Once your in it you win. And like you stated having a group of moonbats helping you out does no good. He should have run them off. But after the crap we have been through the last six months I would much rather have had him in office than the rockstar. And that is the understatement of the year.

ralph wiggum
06-14-2009, 11:21 PM
My vote will likely go to a third party candidate next presidential election. I just wish sombody would offer us a serious contender with a chance to win. The don't throw away your vote arguement doesn't cut it anymore. Every vote that has been placed for president after Reagan has been thrown away.

There's ample time for someone to emerge as a true conservative Republican candidate.

Rockntractor
06-14-2009, 11:24 PM
There's ample time for someone to emerge as a true conservative Republican candidate.
I would gladly vote for a true conservative republican but I don't think the party has figured it out yet. They will likely move further to the left and that will be suicide.

SecretOperative
06-14-2009, 11:54 PM
Ron Paul disgusts me.
A recent vote showed his weakness on National Security.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/dems-defeat-bid-probe-pelosis-cia-charge/
House Democrats on Thursday blocked a Republican attempt to force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to document her charge that the CIA lied to Congress about the Bush administrations interrogations policies
The two Republicans who voted with Democrats to block the inquiry were Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ron Paul of Texas, both of whom opposed the war in Iraq.

IMO:
Nancy Pelosi has weakened our Country every chance she gets and needs to be
put in her place in the unemployment line. Ron Paul had a chance to do the right thing
and he chose to give Pelosi a pass.

RP might have some good ideas, but voting against an inquiry into the lies of one of the most despicable, hateful, socialist liberals in modern history, isn't winning my support.

gator
06-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Ron Paul disgusts me.
A recent vote showed his weakness on National Security.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/dems-defeat-bid-probe-pelosis-cia-charge/
House Democrats on Thursday blocked a Republican attempt to force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to document her charge that the CIA lied to Congress about the Bush administrations interrogations policies
The two Republicans who voted with Democrats to block the inquiry were Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ron Paul of Texas, both of whom opposed the war in Iraq.

IMO:
Nancy Pelosi has weakened our Country every chance she gets and needs to be
put in her place in the unemployment line. Ron Paul had a chance to do the right thing
and he chose to give Pelosi a pass.

RP might have some good ideas, but voting against an inquiry into the lies of one of the most despicable, hateful, socialist liberals in modern history, isn't winning my support.

You raised a good point.

I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida Primaries in 2007 mainly as a protest vote against the liberalization of the Republican Party.

I think he understands the concept of limited government better than anybody else.

His ideas on non intervention are right on the mark as far as I am concerned.

However, like many Libertarians he is borderline wacko. You can never quite trust him on any particular issue. For instance, he supports abortion, legalization of dangerous and addictive drugs and open borders although in his rhetoric he tries to minimize his position.

He is very right on some issues and very wrong on others.

Libertarians are not the answer to our problems. The answer to restoring the Republic and returning to the Constitution is in returning to core Conservative values and understand limited government, which many people in this country reject including the New (Neo) Conservatives.

Bush is a great example of this. He increased Federal spending almost a trillion dollars a year, ran deficit budgets, refused to seal the border and got us into a foreign entanglement in Iraq that caused the death of several thousands of our best men and women for little or nothing

gator
06-15-2009, 11:17 AM
- CU has done nothing but improve since 2005.

I disagree.

CU was much better back in 2003 etc.

Back in those days the site stood for real conservative values and people were not afraid to voice their opinion. The Liberals were really bashed and you saw very little of kowtowing to Left Wing political correctness.

What we have seen since 2005 is political correctness and an influx of borderline liberals (neocons) that claim to be Conservatives. Very much similar to the national makeup.

Instead of Conservativeunderground the name of the site should be “Middleoftheroadaboveground”.

The site is more popular nowadays but it is hardly an “underground” anything.

SecretOperative
06-15-2009, 12:05 PM
He is very right on some issues and very wrong on others.
Bush is a great example of this. He increase Federal spending almost a trillion dollars a year, ran deficit budgets...

Very right on some issues and dead wrong on other issues disqualifies him IMO.
Why should we support another flawed candidate? Ron Paul needs to grow a
set a balls (please excuse my French) and stand up for what is right not just
follow the libs on the vote I mentioned above. He's not LEADING and we need
LEADERS.

RE: Bush
Leaders make tough decisions. I'm not going to debate the Bush presidency, but he did keep
us safe. BHO is weakening our National Security (with the help of Ron Paul). BHO is bankrupting our Country with wasteful spending and the time to bash Bush seems just as wasteful. IMO: It's time to let go and let history judge his presidency.

Rebel Yell
06-15-2009, 12:31 PM
Has anyone watched the documentary film, New World Order? It is littered with Ron Paul supporters.

wilbur
06-15-2009, 12:48 PM
You raised a good point.

I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida Primaries in 2007 mainly as a protest vote against the liberalization of the Republican Party.

I think he understands the concept of limited government better than anybody else.

His ideas on non intervention are right on the mark as far as I am concerned.

However, like many Libertarians he is borderline wacko. You can never quite trust him on any particular issue. For instance, he supports abortion, legalization of dangerous and addictive drugs and open borders although in his rhetoric he tries to minimize his position.

Since when does RP support abortion?

The best concession he has ever given on the issue is that he would advocate a states rights position (like most things).... but he's also introduced federal bills to define life (and human rights) at the time of conception.

gator
06-15-2009, 02:48 PM
Very right on some issues and dead wrong on other issues disqualifies him IMO.
Why should we support another flawed candidate? Ron Paul needs to grow a
set a balls (please excuse my French) and stand up for what is right not just
follow the libs on the vote I mentioned above. He's not LEADING and we need
LEADERS.

RE: Bush
Leaders make tough decisions. I'm not going to debate the Bush presidency, but he did keep
us safe. BHO is weakening our National Security (with the help of Ron Paul). BHO is bankrupting our Country with wasteful spending and the time to bash Bush seems just as wasteful. IMO: It's time to let go and let history judge his presidency.

Bush continued the bankruptcy that started in earnest back with LBJ and continued with every President, including Reagan. You have to remember that the largest tax increase in the history of the Republic to date came under Reagan. He cut income taxes but increased other government revenues and taxes. He increased the size of government while President. The best you can say is that he decreased the rate of growth. Like Bush he also refused to send the Illegals home or even seal the border. He also signed a “crime” bill that closed the Registry on Class III firearms even though not one Class III firearm had ever been used in a crime. I won’t even talk about the stupid intervention of sending the Marines to Beirut to make Israel safe. I have to give him credit. After the Marines got their asses kicked he did have enough sense to get them the hell out.

Bush continued with the big spending and big government. Until Obama came along Bush was the king of wasteful spending .The Federal budget increased by leaps and bounds each of the six years Bush and his party were in control of the government and he never vetoed one spending bill during that time. He even started his own wasteful entitlement programs.

Obama just took it to a whole new level.

The question nowadays is not if we are going to be Socialist but when. I heard some stupid ass Republican senator on TV yesterday talking about the Republican alternative to Obama’s socialized medicine plan. Not a whole lot of real difference between the two in the long run. The government will still be involved in transferring money from the working people to the welfare shits in both programs.

Troll
06-15-2009, 06:55 PM
Has anyone watched the documentary film, New World Order? It is littered with Ron Paul supporters.

I used to scoff at the idea of a 'New World Order', but I think that to a degree, the oft-agreed upon (by fringe loonies) "goals" of the New World Order are beginning to play out right in front of us.

1. A series of "Unions" which will eventually turn into a world without borders or countries.

2. A world currency, government and economic layout.

3. A microchipped and disarmed population.

These are wheels that are already turning. Whether or not there's some ultrasecret conspiracy behind these events is irrelevant - they are happening, and I'd like a politician that wants to put the brakes on it like Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul. And if they want to reduce the size and power of the government, that's fine too. :D

SecretOperative
06-15-2009, 11:00 PM
You have to remember that the largest tax increase in the history of the Republic to date came under Reagan.

Soon the highest increase in history will belong to B. Hussein Obama.
With the rate of spending, it's inevitable.


Like Bush he also refused to send the Illegals home or even seal the border.


And BHO will put them on the payroll at ACORN. You know damm well the dems and RON PAUL will continue to resist
the use of Everify (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD) which could seriously cut down on the number of illegals. Especially as you have
the Hussein administration investigating those who actually enforce immigration laws. (http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44899)


I've heard enough, Ron Paul is just appalling.

Bleda
06-16-2009, 04:56 AM
I think I agree with most of Ron Paul's domestic policy, but when it comes to national security/foreign policy, he's a complete nutter.

SecretOperative
06-16-2009, 05:16 AM
I'd like a politician that wants to put the brakes on it like Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul.

Oh yeah. Ron Paul will put the brakes on it. Give me a break. He sides with the libs 99%* of the time.
He's been so weak on National Security, even if he grew a pair and started LEADING, it's too late.
Put a fork in him, he's done.




*99% might be a slight exaggeration.

gator
06-16-2009, 06:30 AM
I think I agree with most of Ron Paul's domestic policy, but when it comes to national security/foreign policy, he's a complete nutter.

To me that is his strong point.

The man believes in non intervention and to me that is a good thing. The Founding Fathers and Ron Paul are in agreement on that point.

We are going bankrupted making sure that the whole world has blue fingers just like the old Soviet Union went bankrupted making sure the whole world wore red scarves.

gator
06-16-2009, 06:36 AM
Soon the highest increase in history will belong to B. Hussein Obama.
With the rate of spending, it's inevitable.



And BHO will put them on the payroll at ACORN. You know damm well the dems and RON PAUL will continue to resist
the use of Everify (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD) which could seriously cut down on the number of illegals. Especially as you have
the Hussein administration investigating those who actually enforce immigration laws. (http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44899)


I've heard enough, Ron Paul is just appalling.

There is no question Obama will be a disaster for this country. That is not even debatable.

The Republicans (along with the Democrats) have also been a disaster for this country.

We are passed the point where the political process or either one of the existing parties can reestablish the Republic and restore the Constitution. It won't happen at the ballot box because both parties are doing nothing more than selling their representation to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul is no solution but at least he understands the root cause of the problems our country is facing and is not afraid to say so. That is more than you can say for most politicians.

lacarnut
06-16-2009, 08:15 AM
There is no question Obama will be a disaster for this country. That is not even debatable.

The Republicans (along with the Democrats) have also been a disaster for this country.

We are passed the point where the political process or either one of the existing parties can reestablish the Republic and restore the Constitution. It won't happen at the ballot box because both parties are doing nothing more than selling their representation to the highest bidder.

Ron Paul is no solution but at least he understands the root cause of the problems our country is facing and is not afraid to say so. That is more than you can say for most politicians.

I think you are right about the upcoming economic, social and political disaster that Obama policies will bring but I do think there is a slim hope that the Repub might find conservative candidates to run in 010 to derail this freight train. Hoping the ones in office have learned their lesson that big government and more taxes is not what conservatives want. If they don't get the message, we can just crown the SOB King.

Heard on Hannity that Obama fired the Inspector General. Congress tried to make this a non partisan independent position and passed a regulation that the Inspector must be given 30 days notice and a reason for dismissal. Obama voted for this but as Prez, he fired the guy because he investigated one of his supporters. He got a call from one of Obama's thugs telling him he was fired effective today and was not given a reason. It would not surprise me if Obama declared himself ruler and pull a Hugo Chavez on us. He has already thrown the Constitution in the trash can.

My greatest fear is socialized meds. Managed and less care for those that pay for it to provide coverage to those who pay nothing is socialism. Cat scans and MRI's for older Americans along with heart transplants and other costly procedures will not be allowed. This is Obama plan to cut costs. Just go home and die. I bet this prick gets 5 star health coverage along with the rest of the dunces in DC. They will not be under the same plan as you and I.

BTW, McCain would not been a prize if he had been elected Prez but he would not have fucked us as bad as the Magic Negro is going to do.

FeebMaster
06-16-2009, 08:43 AM
I think I agree with most of Ron Paul's domestic policy, but when it comes to national security/foreign policy, he's a complete nutter.

Anyone who makes this claim, and I've seen it a lot, is either delusional or a liar.

Does anyone actually believe you can have a government that intervenes with everyone and everything overseas while completely ignoring people domestically?

lacarnut
06-16-2009, 09:03 AM
Anyone who makes this claim, and I've seen it a lot, is either delusional or a liar.

Does anyone actually believe you can have a government that intervenes with everyone and everything overseas while completely ignoring people domestically?

Our government is giving us a double dose of meddling in overseas and domestic affairs. You want more domestic intervention like increased taxes, socialized meds, cap and trade, gov. take over of the banks and auto industry, pay caps, 16 appointed czars, etc., etc. I don't want the government to do anything for me but it sure looks like they are going to do a bunch of things against me.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 11:11 AM
Anyone who makes this claim, and I've seen it a lot, is either delusional or a liar.

Does anyone actually believe you can have a government that intervenes with everyone and everything overseas while completely ignoring people domestically?

You're assuming that a robust national defense posture means that we'd be intervening with everyone and everything. Those of us who believe that our national interest don't stop at the border and that we have legitimate obligations overseas that require more force projection than a CONUS-based force aren't simply arguing for empire, but for our government to understand and fulfill its consitutional obligations to protect the lives and property of American citizens overseas, and to destroy those who would seek to attack us.

gator
06-16-2009, 11:16 AM
I think you are right about the upcoming economic, social and political disaster that Obama policies will bring but I do think there is a slim hope that the Repub might find conservative candidates to run in 010 to derail this freight train. Hoping the ones in office have learned their lesson that big government and more taxes is not what conservatives want. If they don't get the message, we can just crown the SOB King.

Heard on Hannity that Obama fired the Inspector General. Congress tried to make this a non partisan independent position and passed a regulation that the Inspector must be given 30 days notice and a reason for dismissal. Obama voted for this but as Prez, he fired the guy because he investigated one of his supporters. He got a call from one of Obama's thugs telling him he was fired effective today and was not given a reason. It would not surprise me if Obama declared himself ruler and pull a Hugo Chavez on us. He has already thrown the Constitution in the trash can.

My greatest fear is socialized meds. Managed and less care for those that pay for it to provide coverage to those who pay nothing is socialism. Cat scans and MRI's for older Americans along with heart transplants and other costly procedures will not be allowed. This is Obama plan to cut costs. Just go home and die. I bet this prick gets 5 star health coverage along with the rest of the dunces in DC. They will not be under the same plan as you and I.

BTW, McCain would not been a prize if he had been elected Prez but he would not have fucked us as bad as the Magic Negro is going to do.


There are many of fears from Obama. Socialized medicine is just one of them.

The difference between McCain and Obama was always minimal at best. McCain had no solutions to the root problems that are causing this country to lose its wealth and its freedom. He would have continued with high government spending, deficits and foreign interventionism. He would not have sealed the borders and I doubt he really even knew the number of the Constitutional Amendment that guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. He was pretty much worthless. Not as worthless as the Kenyan but still unacceptable.

We are not going to straighten out this country simply by electing McCain over Obama. That won’t do it by a long shot.

I doubt there is a serious political candidate in America that has the guts to do what is necessary to get this country back on track. Ron Paul knows the problems and has a few good solutions but he is no real leader and he is wrong on several major issues.

Even if we did have a real Conservative running for President, which is highly unlikely, the US Congress will never substantially reduce the budget or restore the freedoms we have lost. Big government is fully entrench in our society and the Congress, which views themselves as an American “House of Lords”, will never give up power and influence.

We are at the point where the only real solution is to tear it all down and start all over again with the reestablishment of the Constitution. That will not happen at the ballot box but only on the streets.

Maybe after another 20 years of what is coming with the bankruptcy and the economic failure caused by redistribution of wealth and big government will the people be ready to do what is necessary. We aren’t even close to it yet.

FeebMaster
06-16-2009, 11:32 AM
You're assuming that a robust national defense posture means that we'd be intervening with everyone and everything. Those of us who believe that our national interest don't stop at the border and that we have legitimate obligations overseas that require more force projection than a CONUS-based force aren't simply arguing for empire, but for our government to understand and fulfill its consitutional obligations to protect the lives and property of American citizens overseas, and to destroy those who would seek to attack us.

The foreign policy that the "Ron Paul but..." folks usually support tends to resemble intervening with everyone and everything.

Besides, it's laughable to think the single greatest threat to US citizens' lives and property domestically is going to competently defend US citizens' lives and property overseas.

It's just a convenient excuse not to support the guy who actually wants to shrink the government without coming out and saying you like big government.

gator
06-16-2009, 11:37 AM
Anyone who makes this claim, and I've seen it a lot, is either delusional or a liar.

Does anyone actually believe you can have a government that intervenes with everyone and everything overseas while completely ignoring people domestically?

You are correct. Worldwide interventionism detracts from doing the right thing domestically. Besides, it is just a dumb thing to do. The NeoCons love it and the Liberals don't have a clue how to manage it but we continue with interventionism no matter what party is in charge.

Our government thinks it has to intervene all over the world. My God we are presently guaranteeing the security of more countries than I can count on all my fingers and toes. We have a couple of hundred overseas military bases. We spend ten times as much on defense as the next country and five times as much as the next two countries combined.

The filthy countries lobby our politicians and we belly up to the bar even when it doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with our real security.

Our country doesn’t have a clue what real security entails. We think pissing off everybody and their brown dog with immoral intervention is a path to security. Even after the hard lesson of 911 and the tremedous budget decifits we don’t have a clue what the real consequences of interventionism is all about.

At a time when our economy is going straight down the toilet we still are giving money to several shitass countries and supplying them with weapons. We are stupid as hell, aren't we?

gator
06-16-2009, 11:43 AM
The foreign policy that the "Ron Paul but..." folks usually support tends to resemble intervening with everyone and everything.

Besides, it's laughable to think the single greatest threat to US citizens' lives and property domestically is going to competently defend US citizens' lives and property overseas.

It's just a convenient excuse not to support the guy who actually wants to shrink the government without coming out and saying you like big government.

NeoCons hate Ron Paul. They hate the fact he actually wants to shrink the size of the government and they really hates that he wants to take our Founding Father’s advice on noninterventionism instead of taking orders from foreign government lobbyist.

Rebel Yell
06-16-2009, 11:54 AM
NeoCons hate Ron Paul. They hate the fact he actually wants to shrink the size of the government and they really hates that he wants to take our Founding Father’s advice on noninterventionism instead of taking orders from foreign government lobbyist.

I don't hate Ron Paul, I admire anyone who wants to shrink the government. Only problem with Ron Paul is that he's not the man to do it. You can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that he's not batshit crazy. Right message, wrong messenger.

gator
06-16-2009, 01:55 PM
I don't hate Ron Paul, I admire anyone who wants to shrink the government. Only problem with Ron Paul is that he's not the man to do it. You can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that he's not batshit crazy. Right message, wrong messenger.

I have said very clearly I don't think he would make a good president. Go back and read my other posts.

What I should have said is that "NeoCons hate Ron Paul's position on foreign entanglement and reducing the size of the budget". NeoCons don't mind big spending and deficits and they sure as hell love spending American money on making every country in the world safe and secure for Democracy, whether it is deserved or not.

I have never considered you a hardcore NeoCon. You are more like a traditional Conservative than a New Conservative.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 02:11 PM
The foreign policy that the "Ron Paul but..." folks usually support tends to resemble intervening with everyone and everything.

Besides, it's laughable to think the single greatest threat to US citizens' lives and property domestically is going to competently defend US citizens' lives and property overseas.

It's just a convenient excuse not to support the guy who actually wants to shrink the government without coming out and saying you like big government.

So, you disagree with the Constitutional mandate to the federal government to provide for the common defense of the United States? Do you think that the sea lanes by which we conduct the bulk of our trade police themselves? Do you believe that the best guarantee of the safety of Americans overseas is the goodwill of foreign nations? Those are laughable positions.

The whole point of the Constitution was to create a federal government that had sufficient power to unify foreign policy on behalf of the states, but lacked the domestic power to intrude on the authority of the states and the people. The left's approach to government is to invert the proper ratio of power so that the federal government can impose its will on the people without challenge, but cannot project force outside of our borders when necessary. The result of that during the Clinton era was that our government failed to protect us from terrorists who entered the country illegally and resided here long enough to train, plan and execute an attack that was more destructive than Pearl Harbor, while at the same time attempting to expand government's scope within the borders. Obama is clearly continuing this trend. Paul gets half the equation, the minimal government within our borders, but his pacifism is in direct conflict with the foreign policy vision of the founders.

FeebMaster
06-16-2009, 02:36 PM
So, you disagree with the Constitutional mandate to the federal government to provide for the common defense of the United States? Do you think that the sea lanes by which we conduct the bulk of our trade police themselves? Do you believe that the best guarantee of the safety of Americans overseas is the goodwill of foreign nations? Those are laughable positions.

The whole point of the Constitution was to create a federal government that had sufficient power to unify foreign policy on behalf of the states, but lacked the domestic power to intrude on the authority of the states and the people. The left's approach to government is to invert the proper ratio of power so that the federal government can impose its will on the people without challenge, but cannot project force outside of our borders when necessary. The result of that during the Clinton era was that our government failed to protect us from terrorists who entered the country illegally and resided here long enough to train, plan and execute an attack that was more destructive than Pearl Harbor, while at the same time attempting to expand government's scope within the borders. Obama is clearly continuing this trend. Paul gets half the equation, the minimal government within our borders, but his pacifism is in direct conflict with the foreign policy vision of the founders.

What the Constitution does or doesn't do has little to do with this. We're talking about people who try to cover up their lies about wanting small domestic government not some fairy tale document no one actually cares about.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 03:01 PM
What the Constitution does or doesn't do has little to do with this. We're talking about people who try to cover up their lies about wanting small domestic government not some fairy tale document no one actually cares about.

Some of us care a great deal about that "fairy tale document." My oath is to support and defend it, but since you don't, you can go find another country that meets your standards of small government. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

FeebMaster
06-16-2009, 03:16 PM
Some of us care a great deal about that "fairy tale document." My oath is to support and defend it, but since you don't, you can go find another country that meets your standards of small government. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Cool story, bro.

Rebel Yell
06-16-2009, 03:23 PM
I have never considered you a hardcore NeoCon. You are more like a traditional Conservative than a New Conservative.

That's just a long way of saying "good southerner".:D

gator
06-16-2009, 04:04 PM
Some of us care a great deal about that "fairy tale document." My oath is to support and defend it, but since you don't, you can go find another country that meets your standards of small government. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The only thing that you really give a shit about is protecting your beloved Israel. You have made that crystal clear in many of your posts on CU so you can just take your BS about supporting the Constitution and cram it up your Israeli loving ass. You have rejected the direction of the men that wrote the Constitution to stay out of foreign entanglements in favor of justifying the defense of Israel so your stupid comments mean nothing.

You have already proven you have no loyalty to the US, only to Israel so spare us the BS.

If you were a dedicated soldier that really cared about your oath to uphold the Constitution you would spend your duty day soldiering instead of posting your pathetic NeoCon foreign entanglement BS on an Internet Discussion Board.

Teetop
06-16-2009, 04:33 PM
The only thing that you really give a shit about is protecting your beloved Israel. You have made that crystal clear in many of your posts on CU so you can just take your BS about supporting the Constitution and cram it up your Israeli loving ass. You have rejected the direction of the men that wrote the Constitution to stay out of foreign entanglements in favor of justifying the defense of Israel so your stupid comments mean nothing.

You have already proven you have no loyalty to the US, only to Israel so spare us the BS.

If you were a dedicated soldier that really cared about your oath to uphold the Constitution you would spend your duty day soldiering instead of posting your pathetic NeoCon foreign entanglement BS on an Internet Discussion Board.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff6/DVANDERM/not_this_shit_again.jpg

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 04:57 PM
Cool story, bro.
It's more than a story. It's our founding document and the definition of what our government is supposed to be. Being an American isn't about being born here, or paying into Social Security, it's about embracing a set of ideas about how people can govern themselves. Without the Constitution, what is America but a bunch of competing interests and tribes?

The only thing that you really give a shit about is protecting your beloved Israel. You have made that crystal clear in many of your posts on CU so you can just take your BS about supporting the Constitution and cram it up your Israeli loving ass. You have rejected the direction of the men that wrote the Constitution to stay out of foreign entanglements in favor of justifying the defense of Israel so your stupid comments mean nothing.

You have already proven you have no loyalty to the US, only to Israel so spare us the BS.

If you were a dedicated soldier that really cared about your oath to uphold the Constitution you would spend your duty day soldiering instead of posting your pathetic NeoCon foreign entanglement BS on an Internet Discussion Board.
It's unfortunate that you can't see me post without indulging in infantile name-calling. I expect more from adults, especially those who have worn the uniform. You're becoming a parody of the left's worst stereotype of a Vietnam vet, irrationally angry, immature and bitter. The VA has counselors who can help you deal with some of your rage, and at this point, you should talk to someone before you end up shooting up a museum and screaming about NeoCons, Jews, Israelis and whatever other demons
Gator, you really need to seek some help.

Oh, and I don't recall you hammering MarineJackson or any of the other troops here for being online, even when they're in combat, so spare me your feigned outrage over my attention to duty. If I shared your hateful screeds about Israel and Jews, you'd have no problem if I spent every waking minute here.

gator
06-16-2009, 05:46 PM
It's unfortunate that you can't see me post without indulging in infantile name-calling. I expect more from adults, especially those who have worn the uniform. You're becoming a parody of the left's worst stereotype of a Vietnam vet, irrationally angry, immature and bitter. The VA has counselors who can help you deal with some of your rage, and at this point, you should talk to someone before you end up shooting up a museum and screaming about NeoCons, Jews, Israelis and whatever other demons
Gator, you really need to seek some help.

Oh, and I don't recall you hammering MarineJackson or any of the other troops here for being online, even when they're in combat, so spare me your feigned outrage over my attention to duty. If I shared your hateful screeds about Israel and Jews, you'd have no problem if I spent every waking minute here.

This is your typical bullshit story. You think you have the right to make stupid racial hatred accusations about me and then you go and cry like a baby when I expose your anti American agenda.

You are no better than Obama. Today he said that he would not put lawsuit limits in his health care bill. He didn’t do it because the Trial Lawyers Association is second only to the Unions in contributing to the Democrat Party. The cost of malpractice insurance is almost the single largest contributor to the rise of health care cost in America but yet Obama blew it off.

In other words he was willing to sell out America for his sleazy special interest group.

You are willing to sell out America big time to provide for your sleazy special interest group; the Israelis.

You have even gone as far to demean the brave military men that sought to get justice with the Israelis. Two of them were Congressional Medal of Honor Awardees. You are a real dickhead.

You have no love for America if it comes in conflict with your pro Israel agenda. You will sell out your country in a heartbeat to make sure your special interest group lives well. At a time when we are running tremendous deficits that is killing our country you still want to make sure the filthy Israelis are armed well with American supplied weapons and get American taxpayer money. That is really pathetic.

Marinejackson is not stupid like you are. He is as much a real Conservative as you are a NeoCon. He also doesn’t have the same hateful agenda as you do. As far as I know he posted in his off duty hours. I see you posting all during your duty day and I just wonder what you are all about. You claim your military service as some badge of authority but yet you spend a lot of time each day working your pro Israel NeoCon agenda on an Internet Discussion forum.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 06:45 PM
This is your typical bullshit story. You think you have the right to make stupid racial hatred accusations about me and then you go and cry like a baby when I expose your anti American agenda.

You are no better than Obama. Today he said that he would not put lawsuit limits in his health care bill. He didn’t do it because the Trial Lawyers Association is second only to the Unions in contributing to the Democrat Party. The cost of malpractice insurance is almost the single largest contributor to the rise of health care cost in America but yet Obama blew it off.

In other words he was willing to sell out America for his sleazy special interest group.

You are willing to sell out America big time to provide for your sleazy special interest group; the Israelis.

You have even gone as far to demean the brave military men that sought to get justice with the Israelis. Two of them were Congressional Medal of Honor Awardees. You are a real dickhead.

You have no love for America if it comes in conflict with your pro Israel agenda. You will sell out your country in a heartbeat to make sure your special interest group lives well. At a time when we are running tremendous deficits that is killing our country you still want to make sure the filthy Israelis are armed well with American supplied weapons and get American taxpayer money. That is really pathetic.

Marinejackson is not stupid like you are. He is as much a real Conservative as you are a NeoCon. He also doesn’t have the same hateful agenda as you do. As far as I know he posted in his off duty hours. I see you posting all during your duty day and I just wonder what you are all about. You claim your military service as some badge of authority but yet you spend a lot of time each day working your pro Israel NeoCon agenda on an Internet Discussion forum.

My duty day generally runs about 12 hrs, give or take, and after hours, I have a home computer, not to mention a personal blackberry with internet capabilities. If I find a few minutes between tasks to check in here, it's none of your business. As demonstrated by your comments about MarineJackson, you only object to my taking the time out because you're a good little totalitarian who can't take being out-argued by someone who doesn't find you intimidating. But, if my boss doesn't object and I get my work done (and according to my OERs, I do, and then some), then it's none of your business.

As for my patriotism, your repeated slanders fool no one. You are a bigot, and since you can't match me in facts, logic or reason, you choose to attack with lies, insults and profanity. You have repeatedly claimed that American Jews are disloyal to America if they don't buy into your deranged lies about Israel, which means that any Jew who isn't salivating along with you over the thought of a second Holocaust isn't a true American. This is the same dual loyalty crap that antisemites have used to discredit Jews who serve their countries, long before there was ever a state of Israel. The French who trumped up a frame against Dreyfus made the same claims.

Finally, your comments about my alleged use of my service as a "badge of authority" is laughable coming from someone who keeps citing his "NSA brothers." In fact, my status infuriates you because I have standing on the issues and won't be intimidated by you. Frankly, I've seen scarier things under my sink. The fact that you and I share the same branch of service is a profound embarrassment to me. You are a disgrace to any uniform that you have ever worn.

gator
06-16-2009, 07:10 PM
My duty day generally runs about 12 hrs, give or take, and after hours, I have a home computer, not to mention a personal blackberry with internet capabilities. If I find a few minutes between tasks to check in here, it's none of your business. As demonstrated by your comments about MarineJackson, you only object to my taking the time out because you're a good little totalitarian who can't take being out-argued by someone who doesn't find you intimidating. But, if my boss doesn't object and I get my work done (and according to my OERs, I do, and then some), then it's none of your business.

As for my patriotism, your repeated slanders fool no one. You are a bigot, and since you can't match me in facts, logic or reason, you choose to attack with lies, insults and profanity. You have repeatedly claimed that American Jews are disloyal to America if they don't buy into your deranged lies about Israel, which means that any Jew who isn't salivating along with you over the thought of a second Holocaust isn't a true American. This is the same dual loyalty crap that antisemites have used to discredit Jews who serve their countries, long before there was ever a state of Israel. The French who trumped up a frame against Dreyfus made the same claims.

Finally, your comments about my alleged use of my service as a "badge of authority" is laughable coming from someone who keeps citing his "NSA brothers." In fact, my status infuriates you because I have standing on the issues and won't be intimidated by you. Frankly, I've seen scarier things under my sink. The fact that you and I share the same branch of service is a profound embarrassment to me. You are a disgrace to any uniform that you have ever worn.



”Slandering your patriotism” is very relevant to this thread.

America is going to hell in a hand basket because shits like you will sell out your country for your favorite special interest group. For instance, you clam to be a goddamn Conservative but you have made it very clear that your fiscal conservatism stops where the checks to Israel are being written. You have made it clear that America should be in the business of supporting your beloved adoptive country even though it does tremendous harm to America.

Your denial for wanting justice for the American military men killed by your beloved country and the demeaning of those Medal of Honor Awardees that called for justice speaks volumes of your real agenda.

You are in the same group of Americans that let your selfish agenda destroy this country. You don’t give a shit about what happens to America as long as your Israelis buddies are safe. You are no different than the union workers that will sell out America for 25 cents more an hour and another day off a year. You are no different than those shits in the Trail Lawyers Association that will sell out their country for one more 2 million dollar lawsuit.

You are a great example of why America is hurting so much nowadays. You put your filthy NeoCon agenda ahead of the good of America. You are not alone. There are many more like you.

As far as you posting on the Internet all day long instead of soldiering I will tell you why I chose to make a point of it in your case. I know real soldiers stationed in Texas that are working their asses off nowadays. One of them couldn’t even get two hours off work two weeks ago to take his new wife in to get her a military ID card but yet a SOB like you can sit on your ass all day defending your hateful NeoCon agenda on an Internet Discussion forum. Maybe if you would work a little harder other soldiers wouldn’t have to take up the slack.

Jumpy
06-16-2009, 08:17 PM
Then why are there a bunch of completely bat-shit crazy "9/11 troooth-ers" who associate with the Ron Paul camp?

I have no idea. I listened to the debates, watched his speeches on youtube, and loved most of what he said. He was a breath of fresh air.

SecretOperative
06-16-2009, 08:57 PM
I have no idea. I listened to the debates, watched his speeches on youtube, and loved most of what he said. He was a breath of fresh air.

Oh, how lovely he speaks...how eloquent. Too bad his votes prove he's weak on National Defense and
sides with our enemies.

We've already got someone doing that job.

FeebMaster
06-16-2009, 09:04 PM
I have no idea. I listened to the debates, watched his speeches on youtube, and loved most of what he said. He was a breath of fresh air.

It's simple, really. If you think the government is responsible for 9/11, are you going to vote for one of the guys who wants to increase the power of that government or the guy who wants to weaken it?

Every candidate had wackos vote for them. Nothing surprising about that.

Troll
06-16-2009, 09:54 PM
Too bad his votes prove he's weak on National Defense and sides with our enemies.

Can you give me an example of Ron Paul ever having "sided with our enemies"?

If you're talking about his general opposition to the "War on Terror", I ask you to consider all the angles here. I personally believe that if we locked our country's borders and started actually enforcing our immigration laws, we would have very little to fear from "terrorism". Maybe Ron Paul feels the same way?

I also believe that having half a million troops in 130 countries has little to nothing to do with our overall security. The neocon stance on "national defense" is the doctrine of Johnson, Kennedy, and other Democrats. Maybe Ron Paul studies history?

I would also argue that Ron Paul (and others) might have felt that the "War on Terror" might possibly lead to an erosion of civil liberties. Maybe Ron Paul is a strict constructionist?

You could be right, but I think there's a difference between not supporting the "War on Terror" in it's current form and being an outright traitor.

SarasotaRepub
06-16-2009, 10:03 PM
”Slandering your patriotism” is very relevant to this thread.

America is going to hell in a hand basket because shits like you will sell out your country for your favorite special interest group. For instance, you clam to be a goddamn Conservative but you have made it very clear that your fiscal conservatism stops where the checks to Israel are being written. You have made it clear that America should be in the business of supporting your beloved adoptive country even though it does tremendous harm to America.

Your denial for wanting justice for the American military men killed by your beloved country and the demeaning of those Medal of Honor Awardees that called for justice speaks volumes of your real agenda.

You are in the same group of Americans that let your selfish agenda destroy this country. You don’t give a shit about what happens to America as long as your Israelis buddies are safe. You are no different than the union workers that will sell out America for 25 cents more an hour and another day off a year. You are no different than those shits in the Trail Lawyers Association that will sell out their country for one more 2 million dollar lawsuit.

You are a great example of why America is hurting so much nowadays. You put your filthy NeoCon agenda ahead of the good of America. You are not alone. There are many more like you.

As far as you posting on the Internet all day long instead of soldiering I will tell you why I chose to make a point of it in your case. I know real soldiers stationed in Texas that are working their asses off nowadays. One of them couldn’t even get two hours off work two weeks ago to take his new wife in to get her a military ID card but yet a SOB like you can sit on your ass all day defending your hateful NeoCon agenda on an Internet Discussion forum. Maybe if you would work a little harder other soldiers wouldn’t have to take up the slack.


:rolleyes:

Gator...will you knock this shit off please? You are acting like a dickhead.
What the hell is the matter with you?

Teetop
06-16-2009, 10:14 PM
It's simple, really. If you think the government is responsible for 9/11, are you going to vote for one of the guys who wants to increase the power of that government or the guy who wants to weaken it?

Every candidate had wackos vote for them. Nothing surprising about that.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!111


I have to agree.

Politicians are politicians.....


Our country is going to hell. In a hand-basket.........., And we get to mpay for it.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 11:06 PM
”Slandering your patriotism” is very relevant to this thread.
Maybe if you're a complete whackjob, it is. Anyone else find it relevent?


America is going to hell in a hand basket because shits like you will sell out your country for your favorite special interest group. For instance, you clam to be a goddamn Conservative but you have made it very clear that your fiscal conservatism stops where the checks to Israel are being written. You have made it clear that America should be in the business of supporting your beloved adoptive country even though it does tremendous harm to America.
You keep repeating this lie despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. I've shown you that the vast majority of aid to Israel is in the form of loans that they've repaid, but you keep screaming about Israeli millionaires. I guess that's more PC than saying "international bankers" or "Jewish bloodsuckers" but it's still the same bigoted garbage.

Your denial for wanting justice for the American military men killed by your beloved country and the demeaning of those Medal of Honor Awardees that called for justice speaks volumes of your real agenda.
I never demeaned the heroism of the captain of the Liberty. That's a lie and you know it. As for "justice," we've been over this. I don't believe that the attack was deliberate, and you've provided nothing that has changed the minds of anyone here, but you're willing to launch a reprisal attack forty years after the event because you are so consumed with hate that you cannot think straight. By that logic, we should bomb Hanoi again, since the Vietnamese have killed far more Americans and far more recently.


You are in the same group of Americans that let your selfish agenda destroy this country. You don’t give a shit about what happens to America as long as your Israelis buddies are safe. You are no different than the union workers that will sell out America for 25 cents more an hour and another day off a year. You are no different than those shits in the Trail Lawyers Association that will sell out their country for one more 2 million dollar lawsuit.

You are a great example of why America is hurting so much nowadays. You put your filthy NeoCon agenda ahead of the good of America. You are not alone. There are many more like you.
I don't know what's wrong with you, but that rant made no sense, even for you. You're out of your mind.

As far as you posting on the Internet all day long instead of soldiering I will tell you why I chose to make a point of it in your case. I know real soldiers stationed in Texas that are working their asses off nowadays. One of them couldn’t even get two hours off work two weeks ago to take his new wife in to get her a military ID card but yet a SOB like you can sit on your ass all day defending your hateful NeoCon agenda on an Internet Discussion forum. Maybe if you would work a little harder other soldiers wouldn’t have to take up the slack.
You are completely delusional. I work my ass off, and I don't have to justify it to you. I'm serious, get help. I'm beginning to wonder if Von Brunn sounded like you before he snapped.

:rolleyes:

Gator...will you knock this shit off please? You are acting like a dickhead.
What the hell is the matter with you?
He's out of his mind is what's the matter with him.

SecretOperative
06-16-2009, 11:20 PM
Can you give me an example of Ron Paul ever having "sided with our enemies"?

Yes, please review page 2 of this thread.


If you're talking about his general opposition to the "War on Terror", I ask you to consider all the angles here. I personally believe that if we locked our country's borders and started actually enforcing our immigration laws, we would have very little to fear from "terrorism". Maybe Ron Paul feels the same way?

No, he apparently doesn't. Please review Ron Paul's vote on Everify also linked earlier in this thread.


I also believe that having half a million troops in 130 countries has little to nothing to do with our overall security. The neocon stance on "national defense" is the doctrine of Johnson, Kennedy, and other Democrats. Maybe Ron Paul studies history?

Maybe you're a neo-smart ass? What's with all the “Maybe Ron Paul...yada yada”? Fresh off the Ron Paul talking points memos? You believe that our troops stationed throughout the world have little to
do with overall security? I'm glad you are just a troll on CU and not making decisions on our security


I would also argue that Ron Paul (and others) might have felt that the "War on Terror" might possibly lead to an erosion of civil liberties. Maybe Ron Paul is a strict constructionist?


Maybe Ron Paul is just wrong?

As far as civil liberties. I think it's important to protect our Country from those who desire to kill
Americans. If that means we have to listen to calls made to unsavory characters I'm ok with that.
I'm pretty sure that even BHO's CIA couldn't care less about my plans to go whitewater rafting next weekend, pretty sure no one is listening to my calls.... I'm not scared. Protect Americans from terror,
and those who have their civil liberties stepped on, please raise your hand.



You could be right, but I think there's a difference between not supporting the "War on Terror" in it's current form and being an outright traitor.

Nobody called him an “outright traitor”.

As far as the “War on Terror” which has kept us safe for the last 7+ years. It's over and you have nothing to worry about now as it's been replaced with the "Overseas Contingency Operation".

When I say that it just makes me feel so safe!

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 11:24 PM
As far as the “War on Terror” which has kept us safe for the last 7+ years. It's over and you have nothing to worry about now as it's been replaced with the "Overseas Contingency Operation".

When I say that it just makes me feel so safe!
I hadn't thought about it but you are probably right. The war is over. Until their next offensive.

SecretOperative
06-16-2009, 11:43 PM
I hadn't thought about it but you are probably right. The war is over. Until their next offensive.

Yes, which reminds me of this quote:

"Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." - Joe Biden


We are on defense now.

gator
06-17-2009, 08:41 AM
I work my ass off,

You are bad about lying, aren't you? If you want to lie about it then nobody is going to stop you. You have plenty of time to spout your NeoCon bullshit on CU during your duty day so I don't think you are really working your ass off. You are sitting on your fat ass at a computer with nothing to do all day long so you amuse yourself by surfing the Internet, don't you?

Odysseus
06-17-2009, 12:14 PM
You are bad about lying, aren't you? If you want to lie about it then nobody is going to stop you. You have plenty of time to spout your NeoCon bullshit on CU during your duty day so I don't think you are really working your ass off. You are sitting on your fat ass at a computer with nothing to do all day long so you amuse yourself by surfing the Internet, don't you?

You've obviously never worked above company level, but anyone here who's ever been on a staff knows how the battle rhythm works. I'm an assistant S3 in a BDE. Most of my day is spent running down RFIs, reviewing the section's work before sending higher, drafting products for my boss, running the admin side of the shop and putting out fires for the entire BDE. Yesterday, I knocked out two FRAGOs, recorded five AARs for the exercise that we're conducting worked from 0800 to 2100, and today will be even longer. In short, my day is a combination of periods of intense activity followed by decompression. This is how I decompress. Don't like it? Tough. I don't answer to you.

And don't flatter yourself that it takes much time to make you look like an idiot. Nature's already done the heavy lifting, all I have to do is point out the obvious.

Troll
06-17-2009, 06:59 PM
Yes, please review page 2 of this thread.

Done. Ron Paul voted not to force Nancy Pe-lousy on the record about the Bush Administration's interrogation policies. How is that "siding with our enemies"? That's a pretty far cry from aiding or giving comfort to Al-Qaeda, isn't it? Maybe Ron Paul feels like this is more about partisan posturing and less about national security? Partisan posturing is all the Republicans seem to be good at these days.


No, he apparently doesn't.

Okay, that link explained what E-verify is, but not who voted what on it. Not that I'm doubting you, but allow me to post this snippet written by Ron Paul himself:


Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own.

I think he feels like I said he probably feels earlier on, don't you? ;)



Maybe you're a neo-smart ass?

Definitely. ;)


What's with all the “Maybe Ron Paul...yada yada”?

Good question, deserving a good answer. You're accusing Ron Paul of siding with our enemies. That's a pretty big accusation. I'm simply pointing out that there might be more angles for you to consider.


You believe that our troops stationed throughout the world have little to do with overall security?

Some of them do. 600,000 of them in 130 countries? Impossible.


I'm glad you are just a troll on CU

Yes I am. :D


Maybe Ron Paul is just wrong?

Entirely possible. I agree with him, you disagree with him. Isn't the internet awesome? :D


As far as civil liberties. I think it's important to protect our Country from those who desire to kill
Americans.

No argument there. But let me give you an analogy as to why I feel the way I feel.

A man is minding his own business in his house one day, and is stung by a hornet. While he is smarting from the sting, he looks around and sees that the hornet got into his house through a large hole in his screen door. He looks out his porch and sees multiple hornet nests in his neighbor's back yard.

According to neocon logic, this man should ignore the hole in his door, go out to the hornets nests to fight them "in their own backyard", kill a few of the hornets a day for the next 40 years or so, getting stung all the while.

According to non-neocon logic, he should fix the hole in his door and scour his house for any remaining hornets. He should arm himself with a lot of anti hornet spray and not worry too much about his neighbor's hornets until they appear on his lawn. When you see them there, you go crazy.


Nobody called him an “outright traitor”.

You didn't use those exact words, but you did say that he "sides with our enemies", did you not?


Treason against the United States, shall consist...in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Maybe you and I are not understanding each other correctly?


As far as the “War on Terror” which has kept us safe for the last 7+ years.

There were no terrorist attacks on the United States between 1993 and 2001 - did Clinton "keep us safe" for those 7+ years?

Listen man, don't take this so seriously. Ron Paul is not president, and he never will be. I'm just asking you to consider all sides before you pass judgment - he might have a reason to feel the way he feels. Some people disagree with the way the "War on Terror" was handled. There might be more to it than just "siding with the enemy".

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 07:24 PM
I wish libertarians would give us a serious candidate. I am a member of a libertarian forum and most of the time it is anarchist crap. It is hard to get them to debate seriously about anything.

FeebMaster
06-17-2009, 08:12 PM
I wish libertarians would give us a serious candidate. I am a member of a libertarian forum and most of the time it is anarchist crap. It is hard to get them to debate seriously about anything.

They gave you a Republican last time. What more could you want?

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 08:17 PM
They gave you a Republican last time. What more could you want?

I should have voted for Barr. I wasn't pissed off enough yet. I switched parties in april.
What do you think of Barr?

FeebMaster
06-17-2009, 09:37 PM
I should have voted for Barr. I wasn't pissed off enough yet. I switched parties in april.
What do you think of Barr?

If I wanted to vote for a gun grabbing, drug warrior, I'd vote Republican or Democrat.

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 09:41 PM
If I wanted to vote for a gun grabbing, drug warrior, I'd vote Republican or Democrat.
He is a gun grabber? I hadn't heard that one.

SecretOperative
06-17-2009, 09:43 PM
Maybe Ron Paul feels like this is more about partisan posturing and less about national security? Partisan posturing is all the Republicans seem to be good at these days.



I knew that was a stretch and knew that would be your response. LOL
Ok, considering waterboarding an Al-Qaeda member saved an attack on LA. I consider the technique effective in saving American lives and also much more sane the methods employed by our enemies. High ranking members of Congress knew about the water boarding and didn't have a problem with it. The speaker claims the CIA lied about it. That is a serious charge and should be investigated. Having this charge by someone 3rd in line to the presidency really paints a sad state of affairs here at home.
When members of Congress wanted to have an inquiry to clear up the question of whether or not the CIA lied. Ron Paul voted with the democrats as he does so often. I believe he voted this way, to block the inquiry because it's his belief that waterboarding is torture. The question of wether the CIA is lying to Congress is a bigger issue then RP's stance on waterboarding.

It's not question of partisan politics it's a question of the honesty and integrity (or lack of) in congress.
Our enemies are watching and I'm sure they love your friend Ron Paul (and of course, Nancy Pelosi).




Okay, that link explained what E-verify is, but not who voted what on it. Not that I'm doubting you, but allow me to post this snippet written by Ron Paul himself:
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own.


Ok, sorry bout that... I fully intended to put Ron Paul's vote in my last response.
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TX&VIPID=787

Ron Paull Voted against employment verification in 2008
Rep. Paul voted against a bill, HR 6633, to reauthorize the E-Verify program for a period of 5 years. The E-Verify program allows businesses to determine the legal status of new hires and prevents illegal aliens from being hired, thus making the program an important tool in the Attrition through Enforcement anti-illegal immigration strategy. The bill passed by a vote of 407-2 (31 July 2008; 7:44pm).

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.

Enuff said.


I think he feels like I said he probably feels earlier on, don't you? ;)

I guess not, unless he doesn't vote the way he feels. lol

Ron Paul - FAIL.


A man is minding his own business in his house one day, and is stung by a hornet. While he is smarting from the sting, he looks around and sees that the hornet got into his house through a large hole in his screen door. He looks out his porch and sees multiple hornet nests in his neighbor's back yard.

According to neocon logic, this man should ignore the hole in his door, go out to the hornets nests to fight them "in their own backyard", kill a few of the hornets a day for the next 40 years or so, getting stung all the while.

According to non-neocon logic, he should fix the hole in his door and scour his house for any remaining hornets. He should arm himself with a lot of anti hornet spray and not worry too much about his neighbor's hornets until they appear on his lawn. When you see them there, you go crazy.

I guess based on Ron Paul votes, he doesn't share your, "non-neocon logic".




There were no terrorist attacks on the United States between 1993 and 2001 - did Clinton "keep us safe" for those 7+ years?

No.

February 26, 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Bin Laden? I guess a non-neocon is going to let him go as well?




Listen man, don't take this so seriously. Ron Paul is not president, and he never will be. I'm just asking you to consider all sides before you pass judgment - he might have a reason to feel the way he feels. Some people disagree with the way the "War on Terror" was handled. There might be more to it than just "siding with the enemy".

I agree, he will never be president. I don't pass judgment lightly, I've looked at his votes on issues I care about and he comes up on the wrong side nearly every time. He's all yours. ;)

FeebMaster
06-18-2009, 12:57 AM
He is a gun grabber? I hadn't heard that one.

It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

hazlnut
06-18-2009, 03:32 PM
I wish libertarians would give us a serious candidate. I am a member of a libertarian forum and most of the time it is anarchist crap. It is hard to get them to debate seriously about anything.

That's anarchy for you. They start getting serious and organizing... they're not anarchists any more.;)

Rockntractor
06-18-2009, 06:48 PM
That's anarchy for you. They start getting serious and organizing... they're not anarchists any more.;)
Good point!

Odysseus
06-18-2009, 06:52 PM
It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

That's anarchy for you. They start getting serious and organizing... they're not anarchists any more.;)
At that point, they become fascists.

AlmostThere
06-19-2009, 04:18 PM
The 6-19-2009 House Resolution Res-560, was passed 405-1. Ron Paul was the lone NAY vote. The resolution condemns the violent crack down on citizens protesting because they believe the Iranian presidential election had been rigged. Will this man stand-up for anything that exists beyond our borders? Does he really think that events beyond our borders cannot have profound effects on our country?

FeebMaster
06-19-2009, 04:26 PM
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

It depends on what your definition of gun grabbing is. Some people think keeping guns out of the "wrong hands" and background checking everyone isn't gun grabbing. Some think it is. In Barr's case, people are generally referring to his support of the Lautenberg Amendment.

Odysseus
06-19-2009, 07:00 PM
It depends on what your definition of gun grabbing is. Some people think keeping guns out of the "wrong hands" and background checking everyone isn't gun grabbing. Some think it is. In Barr's case, people are generally referring to his support of the Lautenberg Amendment.

The Lautenberg Amendment gives vindicitive exes the opportunity to scuttle the careers of their former spouses if they're in law enforcement or the military, but does next to nothing about real threats. We've had to discharge some perfectly good troops because they were convicted of misdemeanor assaults, no matter how long ago or what the circumstances were, and there's no appeal. In one case, I know of one Soldier who was convicted on the testimony of an ex-girlfriend who he had broken up with and who he wouldn't let into his house in the middle of the night. She called the cops and charges were filed and even though he never touched her (he hadn't let her in, remember?), they were both arrested and convicted of misdemeanor assault (which, BTW, in some jurisdictions, includes verbal assault). Since the Lautenberg Amendment includes misdemeanors, just making an angry comment could destroy years of service.