PDA

View Full Version : Can Ron Paul Go Away Now?



NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 11:09 PM
My God this guy is unhinged. Now he doesn't think that Iran is either trying to get a nuke or already has one. Yeah, this is a guy I want running the country. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-22-2012, 11:15 PM
My God this guy is unhinged. Now he doesn't think that Iran is either trying to get a nuke or already has one. Yeah, this is a guy I want running the country. :rolleyes:
I'm trying to remember at what point he dropped out last time, I guess I didn't allot any memory space too him.:confused:

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2012, 11:18 PM
My God this guy is unhinged. Now he doesn't think that Iran is either trying to get a nuke or already has one. Yeah, this is a guy I want running the country. :rolleyes:

Elaborate.

Rockntractor
02-22-2012, 11:25 PM
Elaborate.

Don't get your panties in a bind!:biggrin:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/ron_paul_revolution_2012_classic_thong.jpg

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2012, 11:26 PM
Don't get your panties in a bind!:biggrin:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/ron_paul_revolution_2012_classic_thong.jpg

I'll cooler than your body temperature. :smile:

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 11:53 PM
Elaborate.

He straight up said tonight that he doesn't think Iran is pursuing nukes.

Articulate_Ape
02-23-2012, 12:01 AM
He straight up said tonight that he doesn't think Iran is pursuing nukes.

Did he? I must have missed that part. I joined more than halfway through. Do tell.

SaintLouieWoman
02-23-2012, 12:06 AM
Did he? I must have missed that part. I joined more than halfway through. Do tell.

I didn't miss that part. I couldn't believe it.

When he was asked for a word to describe himself, he said "consistent". I'll give him that credit---he is always consistent. It's sad that he can't rethink his foreign policy stances. It's a shame his other thinking on fiscal issues is overtaken by his seemingly far out comments like the one about Iran.

He also said that the Cuban missile crisis was solved only by "talk". Seems to me that the force of the US government and the threat of war had something to do with it.

Articulate_Ape
02-23-2012, 12:08 AM
I didn't miss that part. I couldn't believe it.

When he was asked for a word to describe himself, he said "consistent". I'll give him that credit---he is always consistent. It's sad that he can't rethink his foreign policy stances. It's a shame his other thinking on fiscal issues is overtaken by his seemingly far out comments like the one about Iran.

He also said that the Cuban missile crisis was solved only by "talk". Seems to me that the force of the US government and the threat of war had something to do with it.

I'm gonna watch the whole thing online. If he did say that, then that's a real problem as far as I'm concerned.

RobJohnson
02-23-2012, 02:19 AM
When he was asked for a word to describe himself, he said "consistent"..


Consistently crazy!!!

MountainMan
02-23-2012, 03:04 AM
I mention this earlier in the CNN debate thread. Ron Paul is the equivalent to a political windowlicker. You point and laugh at him from afar but deep down inside you have to feel sorry for the old coot.

NJCardFan
02-23-2012, 04:22 AM
I didn't miss that part. I couldn't believe it.

When he was asked for a word to describe himself, he said "consistent". I'll give him that credit---he is always consistent. It's sad that he can't rethink his foreign policy stances. It's a shame his other thinking on fiscal issues is overtaken by his seemingly far out comments like the one about Iran.

He also said that the Cuban missile crisis was solved only by "talk". Seems to me that the force of the US government and the threat of war had something to do with it.

That was the other thing. He said we should establish trade with Cuba. This guy is completely off the deep end.

txradioguy
02-23-2012, 06:25 AM
Unfortunately when this primary season and Paul's tenure in Texas CD 14 comes to and end it won't be the last we'll see and or hear of Dr. Nutz. IMHO they have a spot waiting for him at MSNBC and he will become their resident expert "Conservative" ready to bash anything and everything our nominee does or says much to the delight of Meaty Fingers Maddow Sgt Shultz or whatever show he pops up on over there.

Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 08:41 AM
He straight up said tonight that he doesn't think Iran is pursuing nukes.


I guess he's going off the dozen different intelligence reports out there that all conflict on what is happening.

Some believe Iran already has them. Pakistan sure does.

Some of us believe that we've got the matter pretty well in hand.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/images/iran%20map.jpg

Bailey
02-23-2012, 08:43 AM
Unfortunately when this primary season and Paul's tenure in Texas CD 14 comes to and end it won't be the last we'll see and or hear of Dr. Nutz. IMHO they have a spot waiting for him at MSNBC and he will become their resident expert "Conservative" ready to bash anything and everything our nominee does or says much to the delight of Meaty Fingers Maddow Sgt Shultz or whatever show he pops up on over there.

I am just glad he is as old as he is, so i doubt he will run again in 2016

Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 10:56 AM
I'm curious as to what Intelligence sources people are citing to determine Iran is absolutely positively making a nuclear weapon. I hope it's not Fox or MSNBC, or CNN or Congress critters or any other media outlets.


Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict - LTG Ronald R. Burgess Jr. Director Defense Intelligence Agnecy; FEB 18, 2012


The intelligence does not show the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon - Leon Panetta US Secretary of Defense FEB 18, 2012


While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. - IAEA report conclusion November 2011.

No reason to believe deterrence won't work (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2006/apr/10/00007/). It worked for 50 years on the biggest threat we ever faced...the USSR.

Rockntractor
02-23-2012, 11:08 AM
I mention this earlier in the CNN debate thread. Ron Paul is the equivalent to a political windowlicker. You point and laugh at him from afar but deep down inside you have to feel sorry for the old coot.

I noticed little pieces of crayon in the corner of his mouth.:confused:

SaintLouieWoman
02-24-2012, 12:09 AM
Consistently crazy!!!

That's what I meant by "consistent". :biggrin:

He looked like a mean old man when he called Santorum "fake". At least Santorum didn't reply with a "Dr Nutz" comment. That was a real low point for Ron Paul.

SaintLouieWoman
02-24-2012, 12:11 AM
I am just glad he is as old as he is, so i doubt he will run again in 2016

Don't count on it. He'll probably run every 4 years as long as he's alive. I'm sure many thought that he wouldn't run again this year at 76. You have to give him credit for his stamina, though.

Rockntractor
02-24-2012, 01:31 AM
I'm gonna watch the whole thing online. If he did say that, then that's a real problem as far as I'm concerned.

Well?

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm curious as to what Intelligence sources people are citing to determine Iran is absolutely positively making a nuclear weapon. I hope it's not Fox or MSNBC, or CNN or Congress critters or any other media outlets.

Everyone knows these media oulets are propaganda pure and simple. At best they are just terrible, lazy, unreliable excuses for journalists. The thing is, it doesn't matter.

All of the "sources" these networks cite are anoynmous government or "expert" sources.

it's the exact same game that was played 10 years ago in the run-up to invading Iraq. Remember how certain everyone was that Iraq had WMD's? Remember how the New York Times and ABC, and NBC and CNN ran with anonymous sources devoid of any truth? Remember how Fox was practically cheerleading the entire time?

People remember, but they just don't care.





.




Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict - LTG Ronald R. Burgess Jr. Director Defense Intelligence Agnecy; FEB 18, 2012

The intelligence does not show the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon - Leon Panetta US Secretary of Defense FEB 18, 2012

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. - IAEA report conclusion November 2011



Lol it simply doesn't matter.

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 09:50 PM
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/images/iran%20map.jpg

Those are US military bases around Iran.

Meanwhile, the wardrums are beating in unison and everyone's panties are in a bunch, hysterical because they believe Iran is a threat to us. It's a joke.

However, it's not about facts. When your ideological framework, the way you make sense of yourself and the world, depends on believing lies, then no amount of facts will ever change that.

fettpett
02-28-2012, 10:34 PM
That was the other thing. He said we should establish trade with Cuba. This guy is completely off the deep end.

that part I don't have a problem with. Flood the market, normalize relations, it's the expat Cuban's in FL that keep us from being smart about Cuba, it's asinine...


still boggles my mind that Cuba didn't become US territory and the Philippines did

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 10:52 PM
I'm gonna watch the whole thing online. If he did say that, then that's a real problem as far as I'm concerned.

Monkey no wanna talk about it I guess.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-917847.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 10:54 PM
Everyone knows these media oulets are propaganda pure and simple. At best they are just terrible, lazy, unreliable excuses for journalists. The thing is, it doesn't matter.

All of the "sources" these networks cite are anoynmous government or "expert" sources.

it's the exact same game that was played 10 years ago in the run-up to invading Iraq. Remember how certain everyone was that Iraq had WMD's? Remember how the New York Times and ABC, and NBC and CNN ran with anonymous sources devoid of any truth? Remember how Fox was practically cheerleading the entire time?

People remember, but they just don't care.





.




Lol it simply doesn't matter.

Gibberish gibberish more gibberish................

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 10:54 PM
Those are US military bases around Iran.

Meanwhile, the wardrums are beating in unison and everyone's panties are in a bunch, hysterical because they believe Iran is a threat to us. It's a joke.

However, it's not about facts. When your ideological framework, the way you make sense of yourself and the world, depends on believing lies, then no amount of facts will ever change that.

Gibberish gibberish more gibberish................

djones520
02-28-2012, 11:01 PM
I guess he's going off the dozen different intelligence reports out there that all conflict on what is happening.

Some believe Iran already has them. Pakistan sure does.

Some of us believe that we've got the matter pretty well in hand.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/images/iran%20map.jpg

Your map is a bit off. Ganci and Manas are the same base, and it's uselss for any Iranian conflict given what we have there. We don't have any real military assets at any of those locations in Pakistan, likewise in Iraq. Uzbekistan doesn't want us in their country anymore, they booted us out a while ago. Those places in Oman are all logistics locations, and most of them we have minimal assets on the ground because we just use them locations as alternates when we can't get into our primary, or to store materials. We've got nothing at Prince Sultan anymore as well.

Next time you try to make a point, use something that isn't outdated and useless.

fettpett
02-28-2012, 11:10 PM
Your map is a bit off. Ganci and Manas are the same base, and it's uselss for any Iranian conflict given what we have there. We don't have any real military assets at any of those locations in Pakistan, likewise in Iraq. Uzbekistan doesn't want us in their country anymore, they booted us out a while ago. Those places in Oman are all logistics locations, and most of them we have minimal assets on the ground because we just use the locations as alternates when we can't get into our primary. We've got nothing at Prince Sultan anymore as well.

Next time you try to make a point, use something that isn't outdated and useless.

not to mention that we're closing the bases in Iraq due to the Idiot-in-Chief's lack of effort to back the troops

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 11:13 PM
Gibberish gibberish more gibberish................

The ideological mind is exceptionally skilled at filtering out facts that threaten the world view that sustains it.

http://i.imgur.com/P9cj8.gif

Odysseus
02-29-2012, 12:55 AM
Everyone knows these media oulets are propaganda pure and simple. At best they are just terrible, lazy, unreliable excuses for journalists. The thing is, it doesn't matter.

All of the "sources" these networks cite are anoynmous government or "expert" sources.

it's the exact same game that was played 10 years ago in the run-up to invading Iraq. Remember how certain everyone was that Iraq had WMD's? Remember how the New York Times and ABC, and NBC and CNN ran with anonymous sources devoid of any truth? Remember how Fox was practically cheerleading the entire time?

People remember, but they just don't care.

Lol it simply doesn't matter.
You want to know what happened to Saddam's WMDs? Just watch Syria.

Those are US military bases around Iran.
Uh, no. Incirlik is a Turkish air base, and we don't have any bases in Pakistan, Oman or the UAE. The bases in Iraq have been shut down as part of our withdrawal, or they've been turned over to the Iraqis. Camp Doha, in Kuwait, was shut down years ago, and I've never heard of Camp Commando, but it looks like it might be co-located with Arifjan. The rest of the bases run the gamut from small Forward Operating Bases, or FOBs, to a couple of air bases that can be used as power projection platforms, but simply throwing stars on a map wherever there's an American presence is extremely misleading.


Meanwhile, the wardrums are beating in unison and everyone's panties are in a bunch, hysterical because they believe Iran is a threat to us. It's a joke.

However, it's not about facts. When your ideological framework, the way you make sense of yourself and the world, depends on believing lies, then no amount of facts will ever change that.

I genuinely love reading strategic analysis from someone who doesn't have any knowledge or experience on the subject. After all, it's not like Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz and severely impact the flow of oil, could they? Oh, wait, they could! And it's not like Iran has developed multiple stage missiles under the pretense of a space program or put satellites in orbit (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/03/world/main4771491.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4771491), right? Uh oh... well, what do you know? They have! But, at least they haven't threatened to launch nuclear weapons against Israel or the US, have they? Uh, okay, they have, but that's just bluster, right? If Iran were a threat to the US, they'd be doing other things, like creating munitions designed to kill our troops in armored vehicles and passing them on to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/apiraniniraq070211/), or planning terrorist operations within the US (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-dc-disrupted/story?id=14711933#.T02vQfEgf5I), or bankrolling, training and arming terror groups that have killed Americans... Nope, nothing to see here, folks. Field Marshall Wei has shown us how much he knows about national security.


The ideological mind is exceptionally skilled at filtering out facts that threaten the world view that sustains it.

http://i.imgur.com/P9cj8.gif

One could say that about a person who still believes in Socialism in 2012.

NJCardFan
02-29-2012, 01:21 AM
You want to know what happened to Saddam's WMDs? Just watch Syria.

Uh, no. Incirlik is a Turkish air base, and we don't have any bases in Pakistan, Oman or the UAE. The bases in Iraq have been shut down as part of our withdrawal, or they've been turned over to the Iraqis. Camp Doha, in Kuwait, was shut down years ago, and I've never heard of Camp Commando, but it looks like it might be co-located with Arifjan. The rest of the bases run the gamut from small Forward Operating Bases, or FOBs, to a couple of air bases that can be used as power projection platforms, but simply throwing stars on a map wherever there's an American presence is extremely misleading.



I genuinely love reading strategic analysis from someone who doesn't have any knowledge or experience on the subject. After all, it's not like Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz and severely impact the flow of oil, could they? Oh, wait, they could! And it's not like Iran has developed multiple stage missiles under the pretense of a space program or put satellites in orbit (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/03/world/main4771491.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4771491), right? Uh oh... well, what do you know? They have! But, at least they haven't threatened to launch nuclear weapons against Israel or the US, have they? Uh, okay, they have, but that's just bluster, right? If Iran were a threat to the US, they'd be doing other things, like creating munitions designed to kill our troops in armored vehicles and passing them on to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/apiraniniraq070211/), or planning terrorist operations within the US (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-dc-disrupted/story?id=14711933#.T02vQfEgf5I), or bankrolling, training and arming terror groups that have killed Americans... Nope, nothing to see here, folks. Field Marshall Wei has shown us how much he knows about national security.



One could say that about a person who still believes in Socialism in 2012.
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/5/128992399641894150.jpg









10K

djones520
02-29-2012, 01:25 AM
Ody, Incirlik is a USAF base. The 39th ABW is stationed out of there with a unit of KC-135's. Air Refuelers, no combat aircraft.

Thumrait is also a base in Oman. It's where freight comes in from our ships, and we fly it into theatre. It's another Air Mobility unit, we fly C-17's through there.

Al Dhafra is also located in the UAE. That is where our bombers that fly in Afghanistan are located at. B-1's and B-52's.

Odysseus
02-29-2012, 11:58 AM
Ody, Incirlik is a USAF base. The 39th ABW is stationed out of there with a unit of KC-135's. Air Refuelers, no combat aircraft.
Incirlik is jointly run by the US and Turkey, but the Turks have suspended US operations there before. We don't own it, and in wartime, our access may be severely curtailed or even halted completely, depending upon how the Turks view the operation. Given the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the current government there, it's unlikely that we'd be permitted to use Incirlik in operations against any Sunni state, and while they might permit us to operate against Iran, it's not a given.


Thumrait is also a base in Oman. It's where freight comes in from our ships, and we fly it into theatre. It's another Air Mobility unit, we fly C-17's through there.

Al Dhafra is also located in the UAE. That is where our bombers that fly in Afghanistan are located at. B-1's and B-52's.

I'll concede these two.

DumbAss Tanker
02-29-2012, 02:27 PM
But leaving aside WooWoo's thin excuse for strategic thinking and abysmal ignorance of force distributions and capabilities, back to Ron Paul: The little weasel is up to something, apparently involving Romney since they seem to be teaming up on everyone else but leaving each other alone (Tip o' the hat to Sergeant Snugglebunny on CC for that observation). I think even Romney knows better than to pick Ron Paul as a running mate, but it could involve a deal to put Rand Paul on the ticket.

SaintLouieWoman
02-29-2012, 04:24 PM
But leaving aside WooWoo's thin excuse for strategic thinking and abysmal ignorance of force distributions and capabilities, back to Ron Paul: The little weasel is up to something, apparently involving Romney since they seem to be teaming up on everyone else but leaving each other alone (Tip o' the hat to Sergeant Snugglebunny on CC for that observation). I think even Romney knows better than to pick Ron Paul as a running mate, but it could involve a deal to put Rand Paul on the ticket.
Or it could involve a deal to put Dr Nutz in the cabinet, hopefully in nothing vaguely related to foreign policy or defense.

Odysseus
02-29-2012, 04:34 PM
But leaving aside WooWoo's thin excuse for strategic thinking and abysmal ignorance of force distributions and capabilities, back to Ron Paul: The little weasel is up to something, apparently involving Romney since they seem to be teaming up on everyone else but leaving each other alone (Tip o' the hat to Sergeant Snugglebunny on CC for that observation). I think even Romney knows better than to pick Ron Paul as a running mate, but it could involve a deal to put Rand Paul on the ticket.


Or it could involve a deal to put Dr Nutz in the cabinet, hopefully in nothing vaguely related to foreign policy or defense.

You beat me to it. I suspect that any post that he is offered will be involved in monetary policy, like FED Chairman, or SECTREAS, either of which would put him in a position to audit the FED and work towards rebuilding the dollar. If Romney is smart, he'll offer either the State Department or the Chief of Staff position to Newt, and HHS to Santorum. OTOH, Romney would be a very effective Secretary of the Treasury, or Chief of Staff in a Gingrich or Santorum administration.

txradioguy
02-29-2012, 05:05 PM
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/149/75461897.jpg

wannaberocker
03-10-2012, 01:08 PM
To understand Ron Paul. YOu have to understand people like Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul approach pretty much lines up with how Rothbard viewed the US and Israel. In Rothbard's mind Israel was causing all the problems with the Muslims and The US policy of interventionism was another reason why the world hated the US.

Ron Paul pretty much agrees with that mindset. As a recovering Ron Paul supporter. I can say that when i was younger this mindset seemed to make sense because it was simple. Kinda like "hey if you dont pick on the bully, the bully will not fight you". However, we know its not as simple as that, sometimes the bully fights your even when your minding your own business. So in time as i learned more about the world, i realized RP was absolutely wrong on his foreign policy.

Now i still maintain that our current foreign policy of sticking our nose in everyone’s business is not Good. However, Iran is a diff story because Iran is an actual threat. Its not some tiny warlord killing a bunch of people and us trying to get involved. It is a real threat to the security of the world.

Anyways, RP will stay in until he has money. When the money runs out RP will leave.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 01:22 PM
Ron Paul does at least serve a purpose in driving the debate to the right, particularly on domestic issues. When he goes on about closing down whole cabinet-level departments of the government, he does at least make a pretty good argument. And, assuming that Romney will ultimately prevail as the GOP nominee, Paul keeps him in check from the tempting offer to bribe the electorate with taxpayer-funded goodies.

Zeus
03-10-2012, 03:20 PM
Ron Paul does at least serve a purpose in driving the debate to the right, particularly on domestic issues. When he goes on about closing down whole cabinet-level departments of the government, he does at least make a pretty good argument. And, assuming that Romney will ultimately prevail as the GOP nominee, Paul keeps him in check from the tempting offer to bribe the electorate with taxpayer-funded goodies.

Romney is good at stripping entities apart and selling off the dead weight and reassembling the the remainder.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 08:27 PM
Romney is good at stripping entities apart and selling off the dead weight and reassembling the the remainder.Sounds like a hell of a good plan for the federal government, if you ask me. Spin off a few "divisions" and sell them for cash, come out with a much leaner, more efficient organization.

I could go for that.

m00
03-11-2012, 12:10 AM
Romney is good at stripping entities apart and selling off the dead weight and reassembling the the remainder.

Well, technically speaking he used LBO mechanics to act as a tax shield for the money he borrowed to purchase the company. Typically you can buy a company for far less than market value due to the tax shield properties. He then saddled the company with the debt, and after selling the assets used the difference as his paycheck.

Applied to the USA it would look like this:

Romney borrows money from the IMF/World Bank to bailout the USA. The money he borrows is in US dollars, and negotiates a deal so he pays no interest rates on the money. So lets say he buys back our debt from China with this borrowed money. He then adds the money he borrowed from the IMF to the US national debt, and walks away with a paycheck which represents the money we "saved" by not paying interest.

If it sounds like a shell game, it's because it is. LBOs are playing shell games with regulations to buy a company for less than the value of the sum of the assets. Then you saddle the company with the debt that was used to purchase it. That's what Romney is good at.