Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    No more than McCain is a born again Christian...;) Let's not forget how many of them support McAmnesty.
    Ouchies, smarts. No one likes to admit it but Obama is the more religious of the two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    Ouchies, smarts. No one likes to admit it but Obama is the more religious of the two.
    True.....and further...
    No one would EVER suggest on this board "Hey, I thought McCain was a "Christian Fascist" or "fundamentalist". Yet, here we go with "truther" for Paul. What next..."Terrorist" Obama;
    Why not "Hey I thought Romney was polygamist?"
    I 've just found it amusing that many strong Christian's who supported Bush are now ready to latch on to a candidate who clearly has disdain for their values yet blanket others with simpleton b.s.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Yet, here we go with "truther" for Paul.
    An honest question. He kept courting the troofers, so I assumed he was one. Didn't he keep saying that we needed more investigations into the real cause of 9/11?

    And doesn't the word "Truther" mean simply someone who doesn't accept the Government's explanation for 9/11? I'm not saying MIHOP or LIHOP.

    But at least we know Dr. Paul wasn't a racist!
    as long as we ignore his publication of race baiting and outright bigoted statements, and his signature on articles directed towards the same
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    An honest question. He kept courting the troofers, so I assumed he was one. Didn't he keep saying that we needed more investigations into the real cause of 9/11?

    And doesn't the word "Truther" mean simply someone who doesn't accept the Government's explanation for 9/11? I'm not saying MIHOP or LIHOP.

    But at least we know Dr. Paul wasn't a racist!
    as long as we ignore his publication of race baiting and outright bigoted statements, and his signature on articles directed towards the same
    From what I know, the truthers courted him. He was asked point blank in three debates if he believed that bunk and said he did not. You'll have to show me what you're talking about. I'm unfamiliar with his courting of them.
    McCain,on the other hand, is courting conservative Christians, but does not resemble one.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    An honest question. He kept courting the troofers, so I assumed he was one.
    When did he ever court them?

    Take that and the only "troofer" on CU was already an established member who wasn't a Ron Paul supporter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    John
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf2231 View Post
    Just keep telling yourself it was the "Troofers" that made Paul and Libertarians in general look like circus geeks.

    I'm sure that helps.
    Just keep telling yourself that Americans are willing to get poorer and poorer et nauseum in the effort to maintain the current neoconservative party line. If it makes you feel better, continue to believe in these ridiculously collectivist philosophies. You see, under the current direction of the republican party, the middle class of America will no longer be able to afford their standard of living. The 'terrorism' club that Bush and his ilk wield pales in comparison to a voter losing a home or having a car repossessed. When Americans are safe and secure in their financial independence they are much more willing to spread good will by force. When their method of providing for their families is threatened you are going to be very surprised when voters adopt a 'me first' attitude. It's already happening. Voters want a lot of what they lost to governmental policy back. Why do you think this whole Obama love fest exists? He's not really going to solve any problems, but he's sure good at making himself look like he will, and American bread-winners are now grasping at anything that can help them keep their houses and cars and rent-a-center home theaters.

    Quote Originally Posted by bicat
    Wasn't Dr. Paul a troofer?
    Short answer: No. Long Answer: Paul doesn't think the 9/11 commission was objective in their findings. That doesn't, by any means, translate into 'Paul thinks the U.S. destroyed the WTC!!!'. If you actually read some published articles and transcripts, Paul is concerned about the objectiveness of a critical part of the investigation, the 'why?'. I don't want to speak for Paul, but from what I've gathered, he fully believes in the conclusions the 9/11 commission provided so far as the 'how they did it' is concerned. However, he's not exactly in lock step with the 9/11 commission as to the motivation of the suicide terrorists. He's pretty sure, as am I, that the 9/11 commission candy coated the reasons our enemies are so motivated. I'm no General, but I've got enough war-fighting experience to know that understanding the 'why' is just as important as knowing the 'how'. If you can counter the 'why' as well as the 'how' at the same time, you are removing both the will and means to fight. According to everyone from Sun Tzu to Patton, that is how you break an enemy.

    However, the troofers latched on to this as if Paul refuted the 'government story'. It's not the case, but some people will believe what they want to believe irregardless of the circumstances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by John View Post
    Short answer: No. Long Answer: Paul doesn't think the 9/11 commission was objective in their findings.
    Thanks John.

    Like I said, I was pretty sure Paul wasn't a MIHOP or LIHOP, but he was questioning points of the official explanation. That makes him a Truther in my eyes, but YMMV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Thanks John.

    Like I said, I was pretty sure Paul wasn't a MIHOP or LIHOP, but he was questioning points of the official explanation. That makes him a Truther in my eyes, but YMMV.
    So anyone that thinks the 9-11 commission was not objective is a truther? You're saying that questioning something is akin to being a wacko nut job?
    WTF?
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    So anyone that thinks the 9-11 commission was not objective is a truther? You're saying that questioning something is akin to being a wacko nut job?
    WTF?
    I think he was annoyed that no one got fired after the attacks happened, the government just got bigger, you know - a conservative's response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    I think he was annoyed that no one got fired after the attacks happened, the government just got bigger, you know - a conservative's response.
    Absolutely....the creation of DOHS comes to mind. I've said this before.....We had a DOHS before 9/11 it's called DOD.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •