But was Ron Paul ever in a die hard movie?

Quoted: Quoted: After reading all three pages of this mudslinging, I am even closer to the dark conclusion that still today there are far too many  guys too comfortable (comfortably numb is closer to it) with this game that has gone too long and too far. I am as yet still undecided on the vote, but I do have to admit that of that entire cadre of usual party clowns presented to us as potential presidents, Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who would dare speak some truths about the sorry shithole state of affairs, and how to get some sanity back. In my opinion we all have our heads so deep in the sand, that few of us can even stand to pull out just a little anymore to maybe seek some light of truth - HOWEVER UNPLEASANT IT MAY BE. My advice to those who are too cowardly to even listen and think for themselves about what the reality is and what's at stake, get some courage for God's sake. Play time is over boys, it's going to get scarier yet. If you think Ron Paul's vision for the world is scary, then you just sit back and see what's coming. Put another spineless Big gov't mouthpiece in power that'll keep pissing down your back while you keep thinking it's rain. Done deal. Whatever you think is coming, it can't be worse than the 'new dark age' that would follow a renewal of 1920s/1930s style US isolationism....

Dave
The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much over in the 19th century. Get over it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: After reading all three pages of this mudslinging, I am even closer to the dark conclusion that still today there are far too many  guys too comfortable (comfortably numb is closer to it) with this game that has gone too long and too far. I am as yet still undecided on the vote, but I do have to admit that of that entire cadre of usual party clowns presented to us as potential presidents, Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who would dare speak some truths about the sorry shithole state of affairs, and how to get some sanity back. In my opinion we all have our heads so deep in the sand, that few of us can even stand to pull out just a little anymore to maybe seek some light of truth - HOWEVER UNPLEASANT IT MAY BE. My advice to those who are too cowardly to even listen and think for themselves about what the reality is and what's at stake, get some courage for God's sake. Play time is over boys, it's going to get scarier yet. If you think Ron Paul's vision for the world is scary, then you just sit back and see what's coming. Put another spineless Big gov't mouthpiece in power that'll keep pissing down your back while you keep thinking it's rain. Done deal. Whatever you think is coming, it can't be worse than the 'new dark age' that would follow a renewal of 1920s/1930s style US isolationism.... Dave The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much over in the 19th century. Get over it.

And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl....

Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die....

P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America...

Get your presidential doctrines right...

Quoted: And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl.... Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die.... P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America... Get your presidential doctrines right...

The monster you refer to is exactly what we have today.
And you're trying to make a reasoned argument why we should keep world policing at full steam?
I don't think you realize the full implications of what you believe in. We're stretched thin militarily, in massive debt, economically weak, losing heart & liberties while carrying the weight of the world. Way to go globalist!
Perhaps you're too busy being scared of the bogeyman the TV tells you about every night  to be bothered with all that.  'Someone's' plan is coming together just fine alright.

Yet RP is a nut

Quoted: Quoted: And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl.... Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die.... P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America... Get your presidential doctrines right... The monster you refer to is exactly what we have today. And you're trying to make a reasoned argument why we should keep world policing at full steam? I don't think you realize the full implications of what you believe in. We're stretched thin militarily, in massive debt, economically weak, losing heart & liberties while carrying the weight of the world. Way to go globalist! Perhaps you're too busy being scared of the bogeyman the TV tells you about every night  to be bothered with all that.  'Someone's' plan is coming together just fine alright. Yet RP is a nut

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.  Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776)

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington

Quoted: Quoted: . . . He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us." And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks. "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary." . . . "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" The stupidity of anyone who could posit such an absurd comparison is astounding. We have military bases in Germany. Where are all the German terrorists flying planes into our cities? We have 70% of the goods sold at America's largest retailer coming from China. Where are all the Americans cutting heads off Chinese tourists here? We have a REAL invasion of foreigners coming from Mexico right now. Where are all the carbombs going off in front of Mexican-owned businesses here? Yet we have CRIMINAL TERRORISTS who were KICKED OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA dictating to the USA and Saudi Arabia what kind of foriegn policy, military and trade agreements our two soverign nations can freely agree to? But Ron Paul thinks we need to "listen to" exiled homicidal maniacs rather than listen to the heads of state of soveriegn nations. Wake the fuck up you imbeciles and look at who's cause you are supporting!!!

I completely agree.

We totally annihilated Germany.  We firebomed many of their cities into rubble, killinh hundreds of thousands of civilians.  German citizens starved to death, and we looked the other way while angry Red Army troops raped their way through Berlin.  We crushed their will.  And SIXTY years later, we still have a U.S. military presence in Germany.

What about Japan?  We totally crushed them, not only firebombing cities like Tokyo into ash, but actually nuking major cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  They lived under a humiliating (to their ethnocentric and racist culture) occupation, following a mortifying total surrender.  We still have bases and a U.S. military presence there.

Yet somehow, I cannot think of a single terrorist attack by angry Germans or Japanese on U.S. interests.  



The Iran example is completely asenine.  Britain is MUCH MORE to blame for all sorts of historical grudges and problems in Iran/Persia, and Iraq is certainly much more to blame for any recent historical problems (including the devastating war).  They focus their hatred on the U.S. - not because of anything we've done to them - but because the U.S. is a symbol of what their religious leaders need to convince their ignorant followers is "evil" so that they can maintain their power base by pointing to an external thread.  Something as trivial as a military enemy can come and go (and you might actually one day defeat an enemy like a neighbor) - but to have a PHILOSOPHICAL enemy, that you can paint as "evil" and "decadent" and allows for all sorts of demagogeue, is PERFECT for a bunch of mullahs and ayatollas who have their own goals, and who need to manipulate their followers.


People who cannot see this, and who instead insist that WE must somehow be to blame, are incredibly naive.

Quoted: Quoted: And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl.... Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die.... P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America... Get your presidential doctrines right... The monster you refer to is exactly what we have today. And you're trying to make a reasoned argument why we should keep world policing at full steam? I don't think you realize the full implications of what you believe in. We're stretched thin militarily, in massive debt, economically weak, losing heart & liberties while carrying the weight of the world. Way to go globalist! Perhaps you're too busy being scared of the bogeyman the TV tells you about every night  to be bothered with all that.  'Someone's' plan is coming together just fine alright. Yet RP is a nut

The TV?

Once again, I refer you to my occupation...

I don't wait for 'The TV' (which I rarely watch) to tell me about my enemies... I go out and make sure I know about them BEFORE we end up in weapons range of eachother...

That's why I'm not a 'nuke-em-all' guy, and I'm not singing 'Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran' (since nothing short of a full invasion of Iran would solve the problem, unless we can get the CIA to do the 'Ready-made Revolution' thing like they used to in South America).....

In fact, as we speak I am getting ready to go do some world-policing personally, on the 22nd of this month...

Let me explain something to you:

Every time we go on an isolationist bender, it ends with the US getting bit in the ass by some newly-developed world power...

We wake up bleeding & hung over, suddenly having to sprout an effective military out of thin air (because someone like Paul wanted a 'Peace dividend' rather than 'wasting' the billions of dollars it takes to keep a combat-ready military, and cut us further to the bone) to go after this 'new' threat that we should have taken out while it was still 'emerging'....

The end result is an order of magnitude MORE dead soldiers, destroyed equipment, and dollars spent, than if we had started the war at a time and place most advantageous to us...

We are stretched thin BECAUSE of the isolationist mindset - BECAUSE the military was cut at the end of the Cold War...

We need to spend MORE money on the military - not less, OIF has been proof of that, as we are stretched to the max trying to fight 4GW in 2 places on the same continent.... If it is this tough to fight OIF and OEF, what would we do against a near-peer power with respectable conventional forces???

And we need to be active internationally simply because (a) we are the last nation left capable of guarding civilization against the barbarians rogue regimes, and (b) because if we fail to hold the #1 spot, someone else will take it from us...

We carry the weight of the world because if we drop the world it will destroy our way of life, and that of our co-1st-worlders in one fell swoop...

Further, the debt is manageable (as a percentage of GDP), our economy has rarely been better (low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation (compared to others)), and if we could just get 2 or 3 divisions back, or military would be where it should be (we are still stronger now - several times stronger - than we were in 1999, due to combat experience and a weeding out of the garrison weenies (you know, the guys who are more concerned with the alignment of uniform patches than with fighting the war)....

It's a long, long topic, and I've covered it several times allready...

Oh, and I'm flying tomorrow, so I've got to get some sleep, lest I piss off my CFI....

Quoted: Something as trivial as a military enemy can come and go (and you might actually one day defeat an enemy like a neighbor) - but to have a PHILOSOPHICAL enemy, that you can paint as "evil" and "decadent" and allows for all sorts of demagogeue, is PERFECT for a bunch of mullahs and ayatollas who have their own goals, and who need to manipulate their followers. People who cannot see this, and who instead insist that WE must somehow be to blame, are incredibly naive.

Especially since we just got done dealing with an enemy that used that exact same approach (the USSR)...

Of course, Ron Paul & his buddies would (in fact I believe Ron was) be on the side of the 'detente' movement....

Historical folly repeats itself over and over....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl.... Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die.... P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America... Get your presidential doctrines right... The monster you refer to is exactly what we have today. And you're trying to make a reasoned argument why we should keep world policing at full steam? I don't think you realize the full implications of what you believe in. We're stretched thin militarily, in massive debt, economically weak, losing heart & liberties while carrying the weight of the world. Way to go globalist! Perhaps you're too busy being scared of the bogeyman the TV tells you about every night  to be bothered with all that.  'Someone's' plan is coming together just fine alright. Yet RP is a nut I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.  Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823) America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821) Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776) Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington

You love quotes, don't you, LC?

But put those quotes in context....

You are quoting the leaders of a nation populated by less people than the present STATE OF CALIFORNIA, who's navy consisted of a few converted merchantmen, and who's army was made up of a bunch of farmers with rifles, and who's most valuable natural resource was LAND....

We were weak, impotent and dirt poor by European standards... In fact, this was a significant contribution to our ability to oust the British (well, that and FOREIGN AID from superior powers) - we simply were not economically worth the trouble to keep (since no one knew how big North America was at the time - after all, the French sold us the rest of the continent for $3 million in gold)....

We also had no idea how much land we were sitting on, or how big & powerful we'd become...

At the time, to become involved in foreign affairs back in the 'Old World' would have done nothing but make us into a pawn of greater powers - a proxy/pawn for them to use in their wars...

At the time, our national nemisis, the British Empire 'carried the torch' of civilization, and 'policed the world'

At the time, those men were right...

But that was then...

The US is not an irrelevant 3rd-world backwater any longer... We are not dirt poor, nor are we economically able to survive on wood, coal and iron alone...

Unless you really want to live in 1776 America, under a foreign policy of 'be weak & unimportant, maybe you won't be noticed', those quotes are historical anachronisms....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And the Isolationist movement died a long-overdue death when the first bombs hit Pearl.... Quit trying to revive the monster - let it die.... P.S. The 'Monroe Doctrine' applied only to the Caribbean & Latin America... Get your presidential doctrines right... The monster you refer to is exactly what we have today. And you're trying to make a reasoned argument why we should keep world policing at full steam? I don't think you realize the full implications of what you believe in. We're stretched thin militarily, in massive debt, economically weak, losing heart & liberties while carrying the weight of the world. Way to go globalist! Perhaps you're too busy being scared of the bogeyman the TV tells you about every night  to be bothered with all that.  'Someone's' plan is coming together just fine alright. Yet RP is a nut I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.  Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823) America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821) Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776) Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington You love quotes, don't you, LC? But put those quotes in context.... You are quoting the leaders of a nation populated by less people than the present STATE OF CALIFORNIA, who's navy consisted of a few converted merchantmen, and who's army was made up of a bunch of farmers with rifles, and who's most valuable natural resource was LAND.... We were weak, impotent and dirt poor by European standards... In fact, this was a significant contribution to our ability to oust the British (well, that and FOREIGN AID from superior powers) - we simply were not economically worth the trouble to keep (since no one knew how big North America was at the time - after all, the French sold us the rest of the continent for $3 million in gold).... We also had no idea how much land we were sitting on, or how big & powerful we'd become... At the time, to become involved in foreign affairs back in the 'Old World' would have done nothing but make us into a pawn of greater powers - a proxy/pawn for them to use in their wars... At the time, our national nemisis, the British Empire 'carried the torch' of civilization, and 'policed the world' At the time, those men were right... But that was then... The US is not an irrelevant 3rd-world backwater any longer... We are not dirt poor, nor are we economically able to survive on wood, coal and iron alone... Unless you really want to live in 1776 America, under a foreign policy of 'be weak & unimportant, maybe you won't be noticed', those quotes are historical anachronisms....

It is remarkable how you could not see that the basic truths in those quotes don't change because time or circumstances change. Otherwise, they're not truths to begin with. Truths are truths. And in those quotes were conveyed the original intent of the founders of this nation. The policies carried out today run contrary to the original plan. Period.
They repeatedly stated their reasons why - and those very fears are manifested today as the U.S.  finds itself in one continuous global quagmire. Amazing, how'd they know that?
Your tone is almost cynical toward the sheer wisdom that gave you the country you're fighting for.

On "Isolationism" as you call it (and how it is no longer applicable):
Interestingly, the same convenient excuse is found by modern day statists for the purpose of diluting civil liberties and protections afforded by the Constitution, not least of which is the 2nd Amendment. Surely you don't agree there's a justification for this infamy just because its a 200+ year old document, right?
Well, I'm afraid you put yourself in their league by your justification for globalism and intervention without apparent boundaries or limits.

Unless you really want to live in 1776 America, under a foreign policy of 'be weak & unimportant,

You mean the same nation of 1776 that just defeated and evicted a global power from its own soil?
You're talking about the extraordinary fighting spirit of those colonists, the Minutemen - men of revolution.
Think they would settle for being weak and unimportant on any matters, foreign or domestic?
That's a pretty foolish and disingenuous statement you made.


Bottom line is (and the bitter truth) that this country has so much invested in the current policy of global intervention (some good, some bad) that there is no easy and painless way to take even one step back. It's damned near impossible to even question it without being seen as unpatriotic or a lunatic isolationist.
On the flip side of that same coin, there are millions of Americans whose livelihoods, careers and pensions depend on our exporting of war and warrior culture, all in the name of saving the barbarians from themselves more often than not. And all the while we talk at home of 'peace and freedom' - neither of which is ever gained, only an incremental net loss of.
And guess what? Those old guys in 1776 were right on that count too. Truth really is self-evident.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

In his private life he was an ob-gyn

The man has my vote.

No really, you ronbots should get a life. The one you live right now as Hillary's pawns, it sucks. It really is.

You're gonna frack us all, just because you think you're morally superior to everyone else. "My way or the highway", you say.
Actually, is none of the above.  Clinton's second coming to the White House and the the Assault Weapon Ban II (this time without an expiration date) becomes a real possibility - thanks to you.
Mark my words: you want "pure conservatism" and  what you're gonna get is Hillary socialism and British style gun bans.

You make me puke with your self-righteousness.

Quoted: No really, you ronbots should get a life. The one you live right now as Hillary's pawns, it sucks. It really is. You're gonna frack us all, just because you think you're morally superior to everyone else. "My way or the highway", you say. Actually, is none of the above.  Clinton's second coming to the White House and the the Assault Weapon Ban II (this time without an expiration date) becomes a real possibility - thanks to you. Mark my words: you want "pure conservatism" and  what you're gonna get is Hillary socialism and British style gun bans. You make me puke with your self-righteousness.

I try not to get into the game of slinging insults, but you sir, are a hypocrite.

In the same paragraph you accuse those who don't believe in your candidate as being "my way or the highway" for being responsible for the complete and total dismemberment of the 2nd amendment you dare to accuse...if we don't vote for your candidate.

I won't go far enough to say that I believe Mr. Paul has all or many of the "right answers", or even seems completely sane, but if the people we've had in office lately ARE what you consider proper & sane, then fuck it.  What have we got to lose?

Lay down the crack pipe Incitatus...you're getting visions of paranoia

Oh and by your apparent definition of "morally superior" : if it means for me simply not acting like a fucking knuckledragger come election time, then I proudly wear that label.

You could start a new thread: A VOTE FOR RON IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY - trademark it and franchise it out. Mama would be proud.

Quoted: No really, you ronbots should get a life. The one you live right now as Hillary's pawns, it sucks. It really is. You're gonna frack us all, just because you think you're morally superior to everyone else. "My way or the highway", you say. Actually, is none of the above.  Clinton's second coming to the White House and the the Assault Weapon Ban II (this time without an expiration date) becomes a real possibility - thanks to you. Mark my words: you want "pure conservatism" and  what you're gonna get is Hillary socialism and British style gun bans. You make me puke with your self-righteousness.

go 'frack' yourself troll

Quoted: You could start a new thread: A VOTE FOR RON IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY - trademark it and franchise it out. Mama would be proud.

Yup.

That would work as well as;

A vote for Perot is a vote for Bill Clinton

back in 1992..

or

A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush

back in 2000..


They didn't change any election outcomes, did they?



Oh...wait.

I find it interesting that a poll asking if freedom or safety is more important, on this board, results in an overwhelming majority of people choosing freedom.  Yet, some of those same people are undoubtedly rabid anti-Paul shitslingers.  They claim they want freedom, but they really want more of the same bullshit.  And yes, they *are* neocons...the new conservatives.  They forgot what it means to be conservative.  

Ron Paul has my vote. I put my constitutional rights ahead of foreign policy on the scale of concern. sorry you all don't do the same.

Quoted: I find it interesting that a poll asking if freedom or safety is more important, on this board, results in an overwhelming majority of people choosing freedom.  Yet, some of those same people are undoubtedly rabid anti-Paul shitslingers.  They claim they want freedom, but they really want more of the same bullshit.  And yes, they *are* neocons...the new conservatives.  They forgot what it means to be conservative.

It's all a question of how people view themselves.  Do you want to be for liberty or are you a  dirty commie?

Start a poll asking "Are you pro-gun?" and you'll get 100% yes, give or take a few.  How many of those 100% are perfectly happy with every current gun law?  How many would support another law or two to keep guns out of the "wrong hands?"

Quoted: Ron Paul has my vote. I put my constitutional rights ahead of foreign policy on the scale of concern. sorry you all don't do the same.

Make sure you remember that when next time it isn't just three airliners that fly into giant office buildings, but a nuke that is detonated in Manhattan or Washington D.C.





Fortunately, since Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination or winning a general election - we'll never have to find out what happens when you put an insane idealist in charge of foreign policy.  

But at least you are voting your principles.  I can respect that, even if I think those principles are "wrong" to my view.

Quoted: I find it interesting that a poll asking if freedom or safety is more important, on this board, results in an overwhelming majority of people choosing freedom.  Yet, some of those same people are undoubtedly rabid anti-Paul shitslingers.  They claim they want freedom, but they really want more of the same bullshit.  And yes, they *are* neocons...the new conservatives.  They forgot what it means to be conservative.

yeah, i came to the same conclusion about the freedom vs safety thread. couldn't help but shake my head in disbelief.  

Quoted: Quoted: LouisianaCarry, don't waste your time.   they won't read it.   no one cares about the complexities of reality - only 30 second sound clips matter. oh, unless your last name is the same as a certain submachine gun, then you don't need any arguments. I am not talking to them.  I am providing ammo to those who might be interested.

Well that was obvious.

You responded to my posts, quoted me twice... and then simply C&P some rambling bullshit batshit.

Yeah - you're not talking to us - you're not even using your own words or thinking for yourself.

All you're doing is dumping a load of horseshit you found on some other nutjob's website.

Gee, dunce - thanks for the spam.

Quoted: I find it interesting that a poll asking if freedom or safety is more important, on this board, results in an overwhelming majority of people choosing freedom.  Yet, some of those same people are undoubtedly rabid anti-Paul shitslingers.  They claim they want freedom, but they really want more of the same bullshit.  And yes, they *are* neocons...the new conservatives.  They forgot what it means to be conservative.

just to be clear....I don't know of a single "rabid anti-Paul shitslinger"

I do know that the vast majority of posters just think he's Mr. Irrelevant, and wonder why the same 5 posters are all over any thread about the election.

Quoted: Quoted: I find it interesting that a poll asking if freedom or safety is more important, on this board, results in an overwhelming majority of people choosing freedom.  Yet, some of those same people are undoubtedly rabid anti-Paul shitslingers.  They claim they want freedom, but they really want more of the same bullshit.  And yes, they *are* neocons...the new conservatives.  They forgot what it means to be conservative.   yeah, i came to the same conclusion about the freedom vs safety thread. couldn't help but shake my head in disbelief.

Some people have a hard time being honest with themselves... the same ones seem to feel that freedom means thinking exactly what they do...

Quoted: Some people have a hard time being honest with themselves... the same ones seem to feel that freedom means thinking exactly what they do...

It just depends on how you define freedom.  

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260 What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul has my vote. I put my constitutional rights ahead of foreign policy on the scale of concern. sorry you all don't do the same. Make sure you remember that when next time it isn't just three airliners that fly into giant office buildings, but a nuke that is detonated in Manhattan or Washington D.C. Freedom or security? Next time...Airliners...Nuke Security!  Security! Fortunately, since Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination or winning a general election - we'll never have to find out what happens when you put an insane idealist in charge of foreign policy.   Haven't we already had enough bad examples? But at least you are voting your principles.  I can respect that, even if I think those principles are "wrong" to my view.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ron Paul has my vote. I put my constitutional rights ahead of foreign policy on the scale of concern. sorry you all don't do the same. Make sure you remember that when next time it isn't just three airliners that fly into giant office buildings, but a nuke that is detonated in Manhattan or Washington D.C. Freedom or security? Next time...Airliners...Nuke Security!  Security! Fortunately, since Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination or winning a general election - we'll never have to find out what happens when you put an insane idealist in charge of foreign policy.   Haven't we already had enough bad examples? But at least you are voting your principles.  I can respect that, even if I think those principles are "wrong" to my view.

Why bother with airliners when they can just drive busloads of whatever they want accross the border...

Quoted: Make sure you remember that when next time it isn't just three airliners that fly into giant office buildings, but a nuke that is detonated in Manhattan or Washington D.C. Fortunately, since Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination or winning a general election - we'll never have to find out what happens when you put an insane idealist in charge of foreign policy.

You are just oozing scare tactics and rhetoric. I find it to be all too common that RP 'haters' are repeatedly using this as a basis for their argument - emotionally charged, unsubstantiated vitriol. I find the argument to be weak and pathetic.

The fact that your types continue to use strong arm tactics to intimidate others to do the same, is beneath contempt.

Unfortunately, here's the dirty laundry list of things to do for the average GOP voter of today:

a)Sell out more freedoms to make me feel more comfy and cozy - CHECK

b)Exploit 9-11, if necessary, to spread the fear around - CHECK

c)Intimidate other citizen voters to tow the party line, isolate and vilify any candidate who dares to speak differently - CHECK

d) Put another Big Gov't dolt who will give us more of what we beg for so that we can continue to play into the terrorist's game - CHECK

Quoted: He has no chance of winning, dont squander your vote. You have two only realistic choices: Thompson or Guiliani.

Says you.  Thompson is going to fizzle out.

It will be between Romney and Rudy.

Me hypocrite?
How about you being a braindead ronbot and a pawn of Hitlery?
Do your own research on extreme left websites such as moveon.org and dailykos and see for yourself how they say in the open Pon Raul is the conservative Kuchinich capable to split a fraction of the  Republican vote in the benefit of Hitlery.
Read and how they talk about going on conservative leaning websites such as ours and troll for Pon Raul in a concertated effort to divide us.
You are either a tool of a fool.

Quoted: You are just oozing scare tactics and rhetoric. I find it to be all too common that RP 'haters' are repeatedly using this as a basis for their argument - emotionally charged, unsubstantiated vitriol. I find the argument to be weak and pathetic.

You know what I find weak and pathetic?

The Ron Paul shills that think we hate Ron Paul.

I don't hate RP any more than I hate Sam Brownback. They're both irrelevant in the realistic discussion of candidates. If every single ARFCOMMER voted for RP, he'd still get stomped like a narc at a biker rally

I like most of RP's values, but RP is not a leader. A leader that has revolutionary ideas must be able to connect with people and explain his vision. RP is just a whiner, and nobody respects that. Except for other whiners.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: it's always depressing when gun owners call for more control, more restrictions, more rules. On a private board? what's so funny? i never said anything about "they should or should not do this or that" - only that it isn't a trend a logical person would expect to see on a board like this. fwiw, I'm a strong advocate of private property rights (just like Ron Paul).

So does America have property rights since they defeated Mexico or should we say, here, have back what your ancestors lost?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: it's always depressing when gun owners call for more control, more restrictions, more rules. On a private board? what's so funny? i never said anything about "they should or should not do this or that" - only that it isn't a trend a logical person would expect to see on a board like this. fwiw, I'm a strong advocate of private property rights (just like Ron Paul). So does America have property rights since they defeated Mexico or should we say, here, have back what your ancestors lost?

I've been a member here for a long time.  That's the weirdest statement I've read .

Of course Mexico doesn't have property rights to the United States of America.  Once we defeated them, the property became ours.

Quoted: Quoted: You are just oozing scare tactics and rhetoric. I find it to be all too common that RP 'haters' are repeatedly using this as a basis for their argument - emotionally charged, unsubstantiated vitriol. I find the argument to be weak and pathetic. You know what I find weak and pathetic? The Ron Paul shills that think we hate Ron Paul. I don't hate RP any more than I hate Sam Brownback. They're both irrelevant in the realistic discussion of candidates. If every single ARFCOMMER voted for RP, he'd still get stomped like a narc at a biker rally I like most of RP's values, but RP is not a leader. A leader that has revolutionary ideas must be able to connect with people and explain his vision. RP is just a whiner, and nobody respects that. Except for other whiners.

Wrong.   Contrary to what you think, Paul has a chance to win the nomination.  And he has as good (actually better in my opinion) a chance to beat the democrats in the general election as any of the other republican options.  Like it or not, the country is fed up with the neocon crap, and if that is what they have for the republican option, they won't choose it.

Also, kind of ironic that you call Paul's ideas 'revolutionary'.  He can connect, and he does.  It's kind of hard to undo years and years of brainwashing in 30 second sound bytes.  He's up against the MSM, so that outlet obviously doesn't work too well. But he's certainly connecting via other means.

Quoted: Lay down the crack pipe Incitatus...you're getting visions of paranoia

I wonder who's smoking... and what?
Paulinian sect members are usual occurences at the peace rallies organized by Code Pink/ACLU/ANSWER/MoveOn.org and other communist organizations sponsored by the multi-billionaire/World Government supporter George Soros.

The following pictures of Ron Paul sect members were taken on Sept 29 in Washington DC at a peace rally organized by the extreme left-wing organizations I just named:






Here are a few pics of the communist crowd that Ron Paul's sect members didn't mind to join:


Something fairly new ... the Chavez supporter.









Oh, and just in case you're thinking to claim the first two pictures were taken at a different rally, here is the entire photojournal from Age Of Hooper

Dear Ronbots,

Please wake up and smell the cofee.  Ron Paul is a lunatic who believes if America just retreats and builds a 20 ft tall fence around it, Islamofascists will leave us alone. He may be an educated person in some ways but he is a fool and completly ignorant in matters of history and culture of Islam. Paul have no friggin ideea what makes muslims tick: it's not that they want us out of their world; it's that they want the rest of the world to convert to Islam or die. It's what the Prophet Muhammad (piss be upon him) prescribed for the world in his satanic book, the Qu'ran.
That being said, Ru Paul has ZERO/Zilch/Nada chances to get the nomination. No wonder the people he attracts are the same as he is: dedicated, well intentioned but dangerously clueless. They're just like the MoveOn.org crowd looking in the mirror: same idiocy and ignorance, only in to the opposite pole of the political spectrum. No wonder they get along toghether so well, as you just witnessed.

"If you sleep with the pigs in the pig house don't be surprised if people treat you like you're a pig"

Think about that.

Quoted: Quoted: Some people have a hard time being honest with themselves... the same ones seem to feel that freedom means thinking exactly what they do... It just depends on how you define freedom.   query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260 What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

I read that whole 'family values" piece by Giuliani. Nice words, pandering to the conservative base, but I don't trust that he really believes in it one iota.

His definition of freedom and how he worked it in there, that was real slick. Intentionally ambiguous. With those statements he just unmasked himself as the big brother elitist that he really is. AFAIC, he just tripped and fell on his face.
He is about law, order and authority of the rulers ABOVE ALL ELSE.

Quoted: TRANSLATION: Pay no attention to anything you've heard, seen or read against Ron Paul. Who are you gonna believe, RonPaulians or your own lying eyes?

Ronbot reaction:


"Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.
Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist.

Ok. I know those pictures never existed and I feel much better now. Back to attack mode against neo-cons"

Quoted: Quoted: Lay down the crack pipe Incitatus...you're getting visions of paranoia I wonder who's smoking... and what? Paulinian sect members are usual occurences at the peace rallies organized by Code Pink/ACLU/ANSWER/MoveOn.org and other communist organizations sponsored by the multi-billionaire/World Government supporter George Soros. The following pictures of Ron Paul sect members were taken on Sept 29 in Washington DC at a peace rally organized by the extreme left-wing organizations I just named: bp3.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_e1hhwZHI/AAAAAAAAAi4/FSMWouZLc_o/s400/ronpaul2.jpg bp0.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_e1xhwZII/AAAAAAAAAjA/uZOfH69_BCk/s400/ronpaul1.jpg Here are a few pics of the communist crowd that Ron Paul's sect members didn't mind to join: bp0.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_cVxhwY8I/AAAAAAAAAhg/AGURZUlvzsg/s400/chavez.jpg Something fairly new ... the Chavez supporter. bp3.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_d9hhwZCI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/7Dp1hR5R2FY/s400/commie-1.jpg bp3.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_d9hhwZDI/AAAAAAAAAiY/YBjIF2V3hBc/s400/commie-2.jpg bp3.blogger.com/_aADl88qa2VI/Rv_aShhwY2I/AAAAAAAAAgw/GCaG6D5vlQ4/s400/commie3.jpg Oh, and just in case you're thinking to claim the first two pictures were taken at a different rally, here is the entire photojournal from Age Of Hooper Dear Ronbots, Please wake up and smell the cofee.  Ron Paul is a lunatic who believes if America just retreats and builds a 20 ft tall fence around it, Islamofascists will leave us alone. He may be an educated person in some ways but he is a fool and completly ignorant in matters of history and culture of Islam. Paul have no friggin ideea what makes muslims tick: it's not that they want us out of their world; it's that they want the rest of the world to convert to Islam or die. It's what the Prophet Muhammad (piss be upon him) prescribed for the world in his satanic book, the Qu'ran. That being said, Ru Paul has ZERO/Zilch/Nada chances to get the nomination. No wonder the people he attracts are the same as he is: dedicated, well intentioned but dangerously clueless. They're just like the MoveOn.org crowd looking in the mirror: same idiocy and ignorance, only in to the opposite pole of the political spectrum. No wonder they get along toghether so well, as you just witnessed. "If you sleep with the pigs in the pig house don't be surprised if people treat you like you're a pig" Think about that.

Oh my god, people were there with Ron Paul signs trying to convince people that communism was not as good as liberty.

Those traitors should be shot!!!

Is that the best you can do? Why dont you talk about the issues?  All I hear from you neocons is Iraq, how about fiscal conservatism, what happened to that?

Quoted: Quoted: Make sure you remember that when next time it isn't just three airliners that fly into giant office buildings, but a nuke that is detonated in Manhattan or Washington D.C. Fortunately, since Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination or winning a general election - we'll never have to find out what happens when you put an insane idealist in charge of foreign policy.   You are just oozing scare tactics and rhetoric. I find it to be all too common that RP 'haters' are repeatedly using this as a basis for their argument - emotionally charged, unsubstantiated vitriol. I find the argument to be weak and pathetic. The fact that your types continue to use strong arm tactics to intimidate others to do the same, is beneath contempt. Unfortunately, here's the dirty laundry list of things to do for the average GOP voter of today: a)Sell out more freedoms to make me feel more comfy and cozy - CHECK b)Exploit 9-11, if necessary, to spread the fear around - CHECK c)Intimidate other citizen voters to tow the party line, isolate and vilify any candidate who dares to speak differently - CHECK d) Put another Big Gov't dolt who will give us more of what we beg for so that we can continue to play into the terrorist's game - CHECK

How do me and my "types" use "strong arm" tactics to do anything?  


We're having an anonymous debate on the freakin' internet, and you are crying about "strong arm" tactics.  Good grief, man - they are words, and we are having a difference in opinion.  

It is not a "scare tactic" to point out that Ron Paul's idealistic attitudes toward foreign policy would make the U.S. far less safe, and far more likely to be attacked - because he is using completely and demonstrably incorrect assumptions to try to justify his isolationlist desires.  He is 100% wrong in his beliefs that our actions in the Middle East are what drives the hatred of fundamentalist Islamists.  If he pulls out of the Middle East, and reduces aid to Israel, it will NOT make fundamentalist Islam hate us any less - it will just send a signal of weakness to the type of enemy that has shown itself to respect only strength.  It is not a "scare tactic" to point out the very likely outcomes of his desired policies.  We KNOW that these psychotic people hate us, and if we bother to look at the underlying causes for their hatred, it is very clear that it has little to do with things like Israel, and it is not caused by our "meddling" in the Middle East.

If you think that a sober analysis of the consequences of a more isolationist foreign policy is "scare tactics" then there is no reasoning with you, because you will apparently assume that any logical argument against Ron Paul is somehow just driven by us evil "types" that have some secret agenda - instead of acecpting that there may be an actual LEGITIMATE concern about some of the assumtpions that seem to be driving Ron Paul's policies, and that those policies could endanger the U.S.


However, to me, this is nothing but an amusing hypothetical discussion, because it is perfectly obvious that Ron Paul will (thankfully) never be in any significant position of power where he will have any influence on U.S. foreign policy.  

Quoted: Quoted: TRANSLATION: Pay no attention to anything you've heard, seen or read against Ron Paul. Who are you gonna believe, RonPaulians or your own lying eyes? The implication is that Ron Paul is like Stalin, a communist, etc. Name ONE policy of Ron Paul's that reflects communism.  The guy wants to fire the IRS.

Actually the implication and fact was that a LOT of Communists and Stalinists support Ron Paul. Do Marxists show up in droves like that at Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter rallies? I doubt it.


So the question is - Why do you think Stalinists and Communists support Ron Paul at his rallies?

Quoted: Quoted: TRANSLATION: Pay no attention to anything you've heard, seen or read against Ron Paul. Who are you gonna believe, RonPaulians or your own lying eyes? Ronbot reaction: "Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Those pictures don't exist. Ok. I know those pictures never existed and I feel much better now. Back to attack mode against neo-cons"

are you insane? who said anything even remotely like that?  perhaps I missed it, but who implied that?

Quoted: Quoted: -------------------------------------- Incitatus: Wow, I am scared shitless... Nice work... "WE'VE BEEN HAD BOYS! QUICK, HIDE YOUR RON PAUL LAWN SIGNS!!! WE'RE COMMUNISTS AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!! Oh the humanity...." Is that all you have to say in defense of your co-religionaries? How old are you, by the way? Just pathetic...

Incitatus, you're real piece of work. I like your enthusiasm, but every time I read your posts, I can't help but think about that line in a movie.....

"Just smile and wave folks, just smile and wave...."  

Quoted: Quoted: TRANSLATION: Pay no attention to anything you've heard, seen or read against Ron Paul. Who are you gonna believe, RonPaulians or your own lying eyes? The implication is that Ron Paul is like Stalin, a communist, etc. Name ONE policy of Ron Paul's that reflects communism.  The guy wants to fire the IRS.

No silly, nobody implied Pon Raul is a communist.
All the pics are demonstrating is how average Ronbots are capable of being nutty enough to join antiwar protests organized by America haters without thinking of the consequences of their actions.
Do you finally understood now, or do you need time until tomorrow to process the information?

Quoted: So the question is - Why do you think Stalinists and Communists support Ron Paul at his rallies?

1.) Because they're morons.
2.) Because they hate the "mainstream" - that's why they think they're commies.
3.) Was it a Ron Paul rally?  It looked like a ron paul guy showed up at a commie rally.
4.) Why didn't Fred Thompson supporters show up?

Quoted: Incitatus, you're real piece of work. I like your enthusiasm, but every time I read your posts, I can't help but think about that line in a movie..... "Just smile and wave folks, just smile and wave...."

Oh, you are living so high above us mortals...

Quoted: ...average Ronbots are capable of being nutty enough to join antiwar protests organized by America haters without thinking of the consequences of their actions.

Recruiting voters from the other side is necessary.  Or were you sleeping during the last 2 presidential elections.

Since the fredbots won't acknowledge that, I'm predicting a landslide win for Hillary.

Quoted: lots of interviews explain how he'll phase out social security - which is what a lot of arfcommers claimed they wanted.

Then put it in writing in the platform.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He has said many times he wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing. But that's not part of his platform now. Why not?   Quoted: Also, he is saying that he wants to give people the money they pay in taxes back, if they are homeschooling their kids.   Why do you think that giving someone their money back is so bad?   I edited my post to finish that thought. He doesnt have every single thing he believes posted on the website.  he has said numerous times he wants to eliminate the IRS.

Something as hugely significant as eliminating the IRS should be included in the platform.

That'd be like if someone was in favor of repealing women's right to vote and then NOT putting that in their platform.

Quoted: *snip* My points stand....I don't hate or fear RP. I just find him irrelevant as does virtually everyone else. and....RP is no leader. This is borne out by the polls and (more specifically) by the reaction to him here on ARFCOM. Clearly he's not connecting with many voters. RP just isn't leadership material. Leaders make people want to follow them, and make people believe that their endeavor will be successful. Nobody really wants to rally around him DESPITE THE FACT THAT MANY HERE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH RP WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUES AND ISSUES.   How can you explain that????

We're not supposed to be electing a leader, but a representative.  Sheep are led.  Cattle are led.  We're not supposed to be led, but represented.