What will Rand and Ron get for their endorsement of Mitt? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What will Rand and Ron get for their endorsement of Mitt?


Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 14:55
I've been thinking about this for a while. The Paul & Son team are not idiots. They are pretty smart guys. Rand has given his endorsement, and Ron is probably going to give his at the convention.

This upsets their base mightily, but I don't think they have thought this through yet. It's obvious that they would not give an endorsement unless it leads to bigger and better things for the USA, like a return of greater liberty, fiscal conservatism, and the large lurch to the right that this country so desperately needs. I don't think they would alienate their base, unless the prize were of suitable benefit to the liberty movement, as to be worth the suffering of slings and arrows from the normal Paul sites. I've lurked on a few of those recently, and while the masses are gnashing teeth and wailing, some of the leaders have come forward with some pretty good ideas about why they are doing this.

Rand has a shot at 2016. If he does not act like a republican, and endorse the nominee, he will be pummeled and treated as an outsider riding the Republican Brands coat tails, like his father.

Rand has already made it a step higher than his dad. What's the old saying, every Senator sees a President when he looks in the mirror??

But the future is a long way off. What Romney needs now is support. What would it take to make it worth Paul giving his heartfelt (in words anyway) endorsement of Romney.


Just some ideas:

1. Rand as VP?
2. Ron as a Secretary of the Treasury?
3. Ron as Chairman of the Fed?
4. Ron as Supreme Court Justice?

What do you think?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

countrygun
06-10-2012, 15:04
Just some ideas:

1. Rand as VP?
2. Ron as a Secretary of the Treasury?
3. Ron as Chairman of the Fed?
4. Ron as Supreme Court Justice?

What do you think?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

#4 is off the table IMO.

How about One of them for AG?, To give a passive nod to deregulation of some things. At the same time turn them loose to investigate Fast & Furious.

Bruce H
06-10-2012, 16:02
Ridicule.

snerd
06-10-2012, 16:05
Grief.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 16:17
Just some ideas:

1. Rand as VP?
2. Ron as a Secretary of the Treasury?
3. Ron as Chairman of the Fed?
4. Ron as Supreme Court Justice?

What do you think?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Rand does not have a straight shot at it in any event. He's got to go on and do something besides being a parliamentarian.

and I hate to say this, but the old man's crazy is gonna stick to him, though a good subsection of bots now hate him for acknowledging reality.

He's also kinda young. He's got potential though.

Ron will never be supreme court justice, not gonna happen.

Stubudd
06-10-2012, 17:08
Number 1 is the only one remotely possible. Numbers 2 and 3 are not even remotely possible- 3 is literally laughable. Put your name or my name in there and it would make more sense. RP is without a doubt literally the last person in the world that will ever be put in that position- the most powerful people in the world will never allow their most vocal critic anywhere near that kind of power. You have to be in the club- CEO of goldman or something like that.

The powers that be will be the powers that be, with obama or with romney. That's their guys. They own us all. They won again, like they always do- until enough people are brought face to face with how things really are. I don't know when that will be, but it will happen eventually. It's getting closer.


actually it's number 2 that you have to work for goldman, but it's all the same people anyway

jakebrake
06-10-2012, 18:48
2 is about it.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 18:54
Well, they've gotten the ridicule and grief, but there has to be something else in the works.



Here is the story of the panic in the paulisphere.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-fans-angry-over-rand-paul-mitt-romney-endorsement-2012-6

fortyofforty
06-10-2012, 19:01
I think Ron Paul's endless pandering and propensity for doublespeak leave him utterly unsuited for any position of authority in any administration.

JBnTX
06-10-2012, 19:04
I think Ron Paul's endless pandering and propensity for doublespeak leave him utterly unsuited for any position of authority in any administration.


:agree:

countrygun
06-10-2012, 19:29
I think Ron Paul's endless pandering and propensity for doublespeak leave him utterly unsuited for any position of authority in any administration.


VP is out. Mittens isn't going to have someone that makes Biden look normal by comparison.

GAFinch
06-10-2012, 21:48
Given Romney's active support of various Tea Party candidates the past couple of years, it' s not ridiculous to think that they'll at least get a few Libertarian concerns promoted by him. Rand certainly indicated this in his endorsement on Hannity.

evlbruce
06-11-2012, 06:42
Grief.

This.

Mittens is gathering a nucleus of like minded liberal Republicans. He, like Boehner and McConnell have made it clear that when you brush aside the empty rhetoric they've no interest in limiting government themselves nor in rewarding support from limited government advocates.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 09:20
This.

Mittens is gathering a nucleus of like minded liberal Republicans. He, like Boehner and McConnell have made it clear that when you brush aside the empty rhetoric they've no interest in limiting government themselves nor in rewarding support from limited government advocates.

And it still looks like he got Rand's endorsement, and will get Ron's.

Question is, what will they get for their endorsements.

Syclone538
06-11-2012, 10:00
Why does it look like Romney will get Ron's endorsement?

evlbruce
06-11-2012, 10:11
And it still looks like he got Rand's endorsement, and will get Ron's.

Question is, what will they get for their endorsements.

Like I said proponents of limited government and fiscal sanity will get nothing, nada, zip, zilch from Mittens. This election is a net loss.

Endorsing Romney is flat out stupidity, Rand will get nothing as he's on the wrong side.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 10:41
Why does it look like Romney will get Ron's endorsement?

Just speculation at this time, but coupled with the Paul campaign telling convention delegates to behave at the convention, it looks to me like a deal is being made for Ron's endorsement. Statements from high level Paul Campaign officials explain that this is necessary to prevent the Paul campaign for being blamed for Romney's loss to Barry, which will be necessary for the liberty movement to remain relevant and give Rand a chance at 2016. There was a video explaining all this on the ronpaulforums web site yesterday.



Why Rand Was Right to Endorse Romney - YouTube

Syclone538
06-11-2012, 11:09
An Appeal to Ron Paul, on Mitt Romney - YouTube

countrygun
06-11-2012, 11:15
" Statements from high level Paul Campaign officials explain that this is necessary to prevent the Paul campaign for being blamed for Romney's loss to Barry, which will be necessary for the liberty movement to remain relevant......."



Gee whillickers, didn't one of the "geriatrics" around here say that would be a concern? that if Romney lost Paul would get the blame and the party would be effectively finished. I think he got shouted down by the by the younger and obviously wiser better educated and experienced Paulites.:whistling:

G29Reload
06-11-2012, 11:55
I think Ron Paul's endless pandering and propensity for doublespeak leave him utterly unsuited for any position of authority in any administration.




Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 12:40
An Appeal to Ron Paul, on Mitt Romney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4FTQvwRrWc)

Well, there are those that want Ron to not endorse Romney, but his campaign is making statements to soften the blow, it's not certain, but seems to be on the way.

fx77
06-11-2012, 14:42
Paul senior is looking out for his son
Rand the son will not have a future in the Repub. party as a team player.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 15:00
Paul senior is looking out for his son
Rand the son will not have a future in the Repub. party as a team player.

I think you meant Paul senior is looking out for his son, Rand will not have a future in the Repub. party unless he is a team player, or at least appears to be.

evlbruce
06-11-2012, 17:37
Just speculation at this time, but coupled with the Paul campaign telling convention delegates to behave at the convention, it looks to me like a deal is being made for Ron's endorsement. Statements from high level Paul Campaign officials explain that this is necessary to prevent the Paul campaign for being blamed for Romney's loss to Barry, which will be necessary for the liberty movement to remain relevant and give Rand a chance at 2016. There was a video explaining all this on the ronpaulforums web site yesterday.

Should this be the case, they're operating on the mistaken impression that Rand will be given a chance. Given his voting record I'd expect that regardless of his actions in this presidential election the GOP Old Guard will be explicitly supporting Rand's primary opponent in the Senate race and implicitly supporting the Democrat rival just as they've been doing to other Tea Party candidates.

Rand has even less chance than his dad does: The establishment will be backing it's hand picked and groomed candidates like Jeb and McDowell while liberty minded voters will steer clear given his questionable endorsements and policies.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 17:46
Should this be the case, they're operating on the mistaken impression that Rand will be given a chance. Given his voting record I'd expect that regardless of his actions in this presidential election the GOP Old Guard will be explicitly supporting Rand's primary opponent in the Senate race and implicitly supporting the Democrat rival just as they've been doing to other Tea Party candidates.

Rand has even less chance than his dad does: The establishment will be backing it's hand picked and groomed candidates like Jeb and McDowell while liberty minded voters will steer clear given his questionable endorsements and policies.

I think Rand has a lot more chance that his dad did.
Absolute unwavering positions don't work well, until you are the CEO. That's where Paul failed. He tried to be the purist, except when he voted for an authorization for the use of force, arranged for federal spending that was not constitutionally mandated, and a bunch of other stuff.

I'm fine with Rand going along to get along if it puts a liberty candidate in the white house.

Right now, Rand is a tea party darling, willing to compromise a bit, but not too much, and he at least seems to favor a strong defense capability, while pulling back some of our world policing policy.

I guess the only thing that will tell for sure, will be a lot of time.

QNman
06-11-2012, 18:01
:popcorn:

G-19
06-11-2012, 21:04
Could it possibly be that principals are really are not as important to them as they led their minions to believe. When push comes to shove it is every man for himself, and Rand is looking out for number 1.

I would not be surprised that Ron did not tell Rand to do it. "Save yourself, boy"

JBnTX
06-11-2012, 21:55
" Statements from high level Paul Campaign officials explain that this is necessary to prevent the Paul campaign for being blamed for Romney's loss to Barry, which will be necessary for the liberty movement to remain relevant......."



Gee whillickers, didn't one of the "geriatrics" around here say that would be a concern? that if Romney lost Paul would get the blame and the party would be effectively finished. I think he got shouted down by the by the younger and obviously wiser better educated and experienced Paulites.:whistling:


That's it exactly!

Ron Paul has seen the error of his ways and he knows now to shut up and get with the republican program, or risk being forever blamed as the man who cost Romney the election.

It's about time!

G29Reload
06-11-2012, 22:05
Looks like G1920 dropped off the radar. Maybe its finally set in.

Talk about being had, totally used, like an old condom, just tossed aside. I guess thats what being so violated feels like, but I can only imagine. The Kid of the Old Man came out and endorsed the Mortal Enemy.

Didn't I say this, back when it was noticed that RP never attacked romney, that there was some kind of tacit agreement?

I was asked why I hate the COTUS and how stupid was I to draw such a conclusion. Now I look like I'm psychic.:shocked:

Still waiting for the apology. OTOH, it was like someone was prison raped and that ought to be punishment enough for mocking me. :rofl:

ChuteTheMall
06-11-2012, 22:15
Well, they've gotten the ridicule and grief, but there has to be something else in the works.


The Bilderbergs finished their meetings with the international bankers, and finally a deal was made. Rand and Ron both get free checking for life.

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 22:20
...I'm fine with Rand going along to get along if it puts a liberty candidate in the white house...

Let's just hope he holds fast when and if he gets there. The whole go along to get along thing is one of the reasons we are in this position.

Rand's endorsement I get from that perspective, however if Ron endorses Romney that is a sure sign it's over. Put a fork in us, we're done.

Cavalry Doc
06-12-2012, 04:30
Let's just hope he holds fast when and if he gets there. The whole go along to get along thing is one of the reasons we are in this position.

Rand's endorsement I get from that perspective, however if Ron endorses Romney that is a sure sign it's over. Put a fork in us, we're done.

Gotta admit, it's better than Cynthia McKinney.

I guess we'll see. If the liberty movement is convinced it is a secret stealth move.... Maybe, we'll see.

QNman
06-12-2012, 21:23
That's it exactly!

Ron Paul has seen the error of his ways and he knows now to shut up and get with the republican program, or risk being forever blamed as the man who cost Romney the election.

It's about time!

Ross Perot syndrome?

GAFinch
06-12-2012, 22:18
The Bilderbergs finished their meetings with the international bankers, and finally a deal was made. Rand and Ron both get free checking for life.

Don't forget the weekly deliveries of gold-covered babies. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alex-jones-believes-bilderberg-attendees-ship-in-gold-covered-roasted-babies-to-eat/)

ChuteTheMall
06-12-2012, 22:44
Don't forget the weekly deliveries of gold-covered babies. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alex-jones-believes-bilderberg-attendees-ship-in-gold-covered-roasted-babies-to-eat/)

When Alex Jones turns against the Pauls, you know it's serious.

Billion dollar baby
Reckless like a gambler, million dollar maybe
Foamin' like dog that's been infected by the rabies.--Alice Cooper

:music:

Gary W Trott
06-13-2012, 07:00
I think Rand has a lot more chance that his dad did.

"...he [Rand Paul] at least seems to favor a strong defense capability, while pulling back some of our world policing policy.
Aside from the amount of world policing policy that he wants to pull back those things make him the same as his father.

tyesai
06-13-2012, 07:18
Rand Paul has always touted himself as a conservative, never a libertarian. I think that there was a lot of hope that he would follow in his father's image and when he didn't it made a lot of people upset. The problem is endorsing Romney is endorsing abortion, NDAA, never ending war, and fiscal irresponsibility. Might as well have endorsed Obama. I'm not even sure what it accomplishes other than sets him up as a mainline conservative...but he looses the base that brought him into politics.

But what is in it for the Ron? That is what everyone is wondering. Probably nothing. It is a wistful pipe dream to think that the Paul's are somehow trying to infiltrate the system for reason xxxxx. In fact it is delusional to think in such a way. I doubt Rand even has a chance for a cabinet position providing that the shadowy overlords are done with Obama...:dunno: (sarcastic)....

We shall see, we shall see.....

countrygun
06-13-2012, 10:33
Rand Paul has always touted himself as a conservative, never a libertarian. I think that there was a lot of hope that he would follow in his father's image and when he didn't it made a lot of people upset. The problem is endorsing Romney is endorsing abortion, NDAA, never ending war, and fiscal irresponsibility. Might as well have endorsed Obama. I'm not even sure what it accomplishes other than sets him up as a mainline conservative...but he looses the base that brought him into politics.

But what is in it for the Ron? That is what everyone is wondering. Probably nothing. It is a wistful pipe dream to think that the Paul's are somehow trying to infiltrate the system for reason xxxxx. In fact it is delusional to think in such a way. I doubt Rand even has a chance for a cabinet position providing that the shadowy overlords are done with Obama...:dunno: (sarcastic)....

We shall see, we shall see.....



I have seen some strange political machinations in my day and I don't put much past political organizations or their followers. Some day, if you get a chance, listen to someone like Bob Beckel talk about the dirty tricks he has been involved,

BTW are you happy with the SCOTUS nominations of BHO?

tyesai
06-13-2012, 13:12
I have seen some strange political machinations in my day and I don't put much past political organizations or their followers. Some day, if you get a chance, listen to someone like Bob Beckel talk about the dirty tricks he has been involved,

BTW are you happy with the SCOTUS nominations of BHO?

I'll be honest the only one I remembered was Kagan because it was questioned if she was liberal enough. The other is Sotomayor and I'd be lying if I said I knew anything about her. Enlighten me... I'll check into Bob Beckel

QNman
06-13-2012, 17:01
Aside from the amount of world policing policy that he wants to pull back those things make him the same as his father.

Aside from the world policing policy, I agree with Paul more than I don't. And even then, he has some good points on world policing, albeit on a smaller scale.

Cavalry Doc
06-13-2012, 17:15
Aside from the world policing policy, I agree with Paul more than I don't. And even then, he has some good points on world policing, albeit on a smaller scale.

I agree. We could dial back a lot of our intervention, and be in a better place. Halting all of it would be stupid on steroids.

On many issues, the difference between libertarian and conservative is how far you go with an issue.

chickenwing
06-13-2012, 19:14
Schiff Radio Exclusive: Rand's Romney Strategy - YouTube

Rand makes some good points, but I don't agree with his endorsement of Mitt.

If Ron endorses Mitt, I wont agree with him on it either.

But I wont foam at the mouth like a rabid dog, like some of the posters here that are giddy over Rand's decision, just to dump on Paul supporters.

If they can influence Mitt somehow and get bills passed that are geared towards a smaller federal government, that would be good. But I don't see it happening.

chickenwing
06-13-2012, 19:28
That's it exactly!

Ron Paul has seen the error of his ways and he knows now to shut up and get with the republican program, or risk being forever blamed as the man who cost Romney the election.

It's about time!

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/4/46694/1469834-glorious_exposition_comrade_super_super.jpg

Ruble Noon
06-13-2012, 20:32
Could it possibly be that principals are really are not as important to them as they led their minions to believe. When push comes to shove it is every man for himself, and Rand is looking out for number 1.

I would not be surprised that Ron did not tell Rand to do it. "Save yourself, boy"

Principals are not that important however, principles are.

G-19
06-13-2012, 20:52
Now, the LP are the spelling police. I guess when you don't have a platform to stand on........

Ruble Noon
06-13-2012, 20:59
Now, the LP are the spelling police. I guess when you don't have a platform to stand on........

In all honesty, I have never tried standing on a principal.

G19G20
06-13-2012, 21:44
I agree. We could dial back a lot of our intervention, and be in a better place. Halting all of it would be stupid on steroids.

We can intervene in lots of ways that don't include bombs and rifles. You're confusing non-interventionism with isolationism again.

walt cowan
06-14-2012, 05:34
double agent?:animlol:

eracer
06-14-2012, 05:36
If you think Mitt Romney will ever move towards a Libertarian mindset, you are deluded.

walt cowan
06-14-2012, 05:55
If you think Mitt Romney will ever move towards a Libertarian mindset, you are deluded.

true. seems alot of folks here are just like abused women, "i can change him, he'll listen to me, he told me he loves me...:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 06:13
We can intervene in lots of ways that don't include bombs and rifles. You're confusing non-interventionism with isolationism again.

Nice fantasy there. What do you do when the economic sanctions fail?

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 06:17
true. seems alot of folks here are just like abused women, "i can change him, he'll listen to me, he told me he loves me...:rofl:

Hyperbole, the last resort of.....

This fascination with pretending that people around here love mittens is an exercise in delusion.

I've not seen anyone excited about him. Believe me, I wish I had a candidate that sent a thrill up my leg like you have, but I don't. I'd love to have a contest between a conservative and a socialist, but we are stuck with a liberal vs a socialist.

Ron and Rand may get something for their endorsements, I'm just waiting to see what it is. It won't be a straight libertarian platform, that would take a genie in a bottle and all three wishes to get close to that. But it should be something, other than just political favor, something substantial that Ron can go back to his followers with to soften the blow.

tyesai
06-14-2012, 06:51
Hyperbole, the last resort of.....

This fascination with pretending that people around here love mittens is an exercise in delusion.

I've not seen anyone excited about him. Believe me, I wish I had a candidate that sent a thrill up my leg like you have, but I don't. I'd love to have a contest between a conservative and a socialist, but we are stuck with a liberal vs a socialist.

Ron and Rand may get something for their endorsements, I'm just waiting to see what it is. It won't be a straight libertarian platform, that would take a genie in a bottle and all three wishes to get close to that. But it should be something, other than just political favor, something substantial that Ron can go back to his followers with to soften the blow.

The genie was out of the bottle and the country was cheated of it. Ron WON IOWA but everyone else but Gingrich won it before he did. If Ron got a fair shake by the media and proper coverage he would have gained the momentum of a freight train and been unstoppable. Instead he was marginalized from day one and Romney was clearly anointed as the chosen one. There wasn't even really a nomination process.

I remember the news being on and some fox entertainment babe saying something along the lines of "well, Romney has won the first 3 caucuses and has thirty delegates, is it over? should the other candidates continue?" I kid you not, 3 states and it is over. (the 30 delegate number is just arbitrary I don't remember exactly but I do clearly remember the three state comment).

countrygun
06-14-2012, 11:28
Hyperbole, the last resort of.....

This fascination with pretending that people around here love mittens is an exercise in delusion.

I've not seen anyone excited about him. Believe me, I wish I had a candidate that sent a thrill up my leg like you have, but I don't. I'd love to have a contest between a conservative and a socialist, but we are stuck with a liberal vs a socialist.

Ron and Rand may get something for their endorsements, I'm just waiting to see what it is. It won't be a straight libertarian platform, that would take a genie in a bottle and all three wishes to get close to that. But it should be something, other than just political favor, something substantial that Ron can go back to his followers with to soften the blow.

I find it very VERY funny that the LIBERALS, of all people, expect idolatry to be part and parcel of a voters choice.


They are either unable or unwilling to believe that other people, especially conservatives, can make political decisions without overwhelming emotion, you know, like adults.

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 11:54
I find it very VERY funny that the LIBERALS, of all people, expect idolatry to be part and parcel of a voters choice.


They are either unable or unwilling to believe that other people, especially conservatives, can make political decisions without overwhelming emotion, you know, like adults.

In this case, you could have shortened "LIBERALS" to LIBs.

geo57
06-14-2012, 14:26
The genie was out of the bottle and the country was cheated of it. Ron WON IOWA but everyone else but Gingrich won it before he did. If Ron got a fair shake by the media and proper coverage he would have gained the momentum of a freight train and been unstoppable. Instead he was marginalized from day one and Romney was clearly anointed as the chosen one. There wasn't even really a nomination process.

I remember the news being on and some fox entertainment babe saying something along the lines of "well, Romney has won the first 3 caucuses and has thirty delegates, is it over? should the other candidates continue?" I kid you not, 3 states and it is over. (the 30 delegate number is just arbitrary I don't remember exactly but I do clearly remember the three state comment).

Please get the help you obviously are in need of.

countrygun
06-14-2012, 14:56
.............. If Ron got a fair shake by the media and proper coverage he would have gained the momentum of a freight train and been unstoppable..........


That portion, is proof of it's own falsehood. If Paul had the potential to go "freight train" and be "unstoppable" then the alleged media mistreatment couldn't possibly have stopped him. If his "message" was just so awesome Dude IT would have gained popular support despite the media. His message was out there, not enough people bought it. You can get more "unstoppable freight train " potential in the HO train set section of a hobby store.

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 15:11
The genie was out of the bottle and the country was cheated of it. Ron WON IOWA but everyone else but Gingrich won it before he did. If Ron got a fair shake by the media and proper coverage he would have gained the momentum of a freight train and been unstoppable. Instead he was marginalized from day one and Romney was clearly anointed as the chosen one. There wasn't even really a nomination process.

I remember the news being on and some fox entertainment babe saying something along the lines of "well, Romney has won the first 3 caucuses and has thirty delegates, is it over? should the other candidates continue?" I kid you not, 3 states and it is over. (the 30 delegate number is just arbitrary I don't remember exactly but I do clearly remember the three state comment).


Ron got less attention because if his showing in the last primary, and also because that any news media person that dared to critisize him was hate mail spammed. Groups of rowdy Paul guys chased hannity throwing snowballs at him. So, he was sidelined a bit. But his message got out there, it is the age of the Internet after all. He had money for commercials. Lots of straw polls and computer polls were bum rushed by Paul supporters erroniously showing him with more popularity than he actually had. He was seen and heard at the debates. It just didn't catch on. Look at the republican primary votes in his own district, and they had to know him, he was the congressman for 30 years or so.

Now, the last gasp will likely be some sort of mischief at the convention. Meh? :dunno: should be interesting to watch, but the Paul campaign is calling for the stealth delegates (Paul guys in Romney clothing) to behave themselves.

Guess we'll see.

G19G20
06-14-2012, 15:11
Nice fantasy there. What do you do when the economic sanctions fail?

You started at point E and left out A through D. Economic sanctions are acts of war. Are you saying that acts of war should be the first attempt to resolve an international situation? Sanctions are terrible deterrents btw because they don't work. How about some good old diplomacy for starters? Then maybe using the carrot instead of the stick?

Yeah yeah I know, old fashioned notions like that have no place in the world today. Threats, sanctions, and missiles are all we have time for these days :upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 15:16
You started at point E and left out A through D. Economic sanctions are acts of war. Are you saying that acts of war should be the first attempt to resolve an international situation? Sanctions are terrible deterrents btw because they don't work. How about some good old diplomacy for starters? Then maybe using the carrot instead of the stick?

Yeah yeah I know, old fashioned notions like that have no place in the world today. Threats, sanctions, and missiles are all we have time for these days :upeyes:

What I'm saying, is that in the diplomatic tool bag, what is the tool of last resort, and how good are the other tools without it?

Carrot? Do you mean foreign aid? Thought Paul was for stopping all of that.

G19G20
06-14-2012, 15:26
Carrots can be anything. Opening up free trade, supporting a friendly agenda for that country through international bodies such as UN member sponsorship, even foreign aid if the situation is dire enough to consider it, etc. Carrots can be anything. Sure, I'd like to end all foreign aid but as long as it's still occuring then it's a tool like anything else to avoid acts of war. Avoiding acts of war certainly ranks higher on my agenda than foreign aid does.

countrygun
06-14-2012, 15:37
Ron got less attention because if his showing in the last primary, and also because that any news media person that dared to critisize him was hate mail spammed. Groups of rowdy Paul guys chased hannity throwing snowballs at him. So, he was sidelined a bit. But his message got out there, it is the age of the Internet after all. He had money for commercials. Lots of straw polls and computer polls were bum rushed by Paul supporters erroniously showing him with more popularity than he actually had. He was seen and heard at the debates. It just didn't catch on. Look at the republican primary votes in his own district, and they had to know him, he was the congressman for 30 years or so.

Now, the last gasp will likely be some sort of mischief at the convention. Meh? :dunno: should be interesting to watch, but the Paul campaign is calling for the stealth delegates (Paul guys in Romney clothing) to behave themselves.

Guess we'll see.


Methinks we are dealing with a generational issue here. it seems as though some people's Mommy would let them have whatever the wanted if they wanted it bad enough to hold their breath 'till they turned blue.

"Ron has to win because I reallyreallyrealllyreallyreally want it"

QNman
06-14-2012, 16:27
Ron got less attention because if his showing in the last primary, and also because that any news media person that dared to critisize him was hate mail spammed. Groups of rowdy Paul guys chased hannity throwing snowballs at him. So, he was sidelined a bit. But his message got out there, it is the age of the Internet after all. He had money for commercials. Lots of straw polls and computer polls were bum rushed by Paul supporters erroniously showing him with more popularity than he actually had. He was seen and heard at the debates. It just didn't catch on. Look at the republican primary votes in his own district, and they had to know him, he was the congressman for 30 years or so.

Now, the last gasp will likely be some sort of mischief at the convention. Meh? :dunno: should be interesting to watch, but the Paul campaign is calling for the stealth delegates (Paul guys in Romney clothing) to behave themselves.

Guess we'll see.

We had more primary debates that we have ever seen in our lifetimes. All of them were televised. Most of us got exposure to it, even many who may not ordinarily pay attention to such things.

Laying blame for a poor showing is pointless. The message was received and rejected. It happens.

Maybe rand will get better traction next time.

Ruble Noon
06-14-2012, 18:44
true. seems alot of folks here are just like abused women, "i can change him, he'll listen to me, he told me he loves me...:rofl:

Great analogy, Walt. :wavey:

countrygun
06-14-2012, 19:33
true. seems alot of folks here are just like abused women, "i can change him, he'll listen to me, he told me he loves me...:rofl:


I was thinking more along the lines of young girls talking to their Mothers,

Daughter: "Oh Mom he is so dreamy. He is just perfect I can't imagine ever being iterested in another man"

Mother: 'Dear I think you had better wake up. Word has it that hes is a little strange. Look at what happened this spring, after all these years with him living in the same house, his girlfriend didn't even give him the time of day. She went out with that Romney guy instead."

ChuteTheMall
06-14-2012, 19:35
Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.:crying:

Goaltender66
06-14-2012, 19:47
Carrots can be anything. Opening up free trade, supporting a friendly agenda for that country through international bodies such as UN member sponsorship, even foreign aid if the situation is dire enough to consider it, etc. Carrots can be anything. Sure, I'd like to end all foreign aid but as long as it's still occuring then it's a tool like anything else to avoid acts of war. Avoiding acts of war certainly ranks higher on my agenda than foreign aid does.

So to distill this, if a regime (say, Iran) wants legitimacy all they have to do is be threatening jerks and string diplomatic jawboning along while continuing to rattle their sabers. Then we go ahead and give them what they want, eg trade with them on their terms, support them in the UN, and if they rattle hard enough, give them foreign aid.

How is this at all realistic?

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 20:05
Methinks we are dealing with a generational issue here. it seems as though some people's Mommy would let them have whatever the wanted if they wanted it bad enough to hold their breath 'till they turned blue.

"Ron has to win because I reallyreallyrealllyreallyreally want it"

I hadn't thought of that....... Excellent insight. http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 20:10
Carrots can be anything. Opening up free trade, supporting a friendly agenda for that country through international bodies such as UN member sponsorship, even foreign aid if the situation is dire enough to consider it, etc. Carrots can be anything. Sure, I'd like to end all foreign aid but as long as it's still occuring then it's a tool like anything else to avoid acts of war. Avoiding acts of war certainly ranks higher on my agenda than foreign aid does.

Sounds like the earmark excuse all over again.

Every country uses force or the threat of force as a bargaining chip. Peace is demonstrably unsustainable. The longer it happens, the more likely there will be war..... Human nature.

Mind if I ask how much time you have spent in Eastern Europe or the Mideast? It might surprise you, that people have different ideas about life there, and that things that seem reasonable to you, don't work there.

GAFinch
06-14-2012, 20:23
Carrots can be anything. Opening up free trade, supporting a friendly agenda for that country through international bodies such as UN member sponsorship, even foreign aid if the situation is dire enough to consider it, etc. Carrots can be anything. Sure, I'd like to end all foreign aid but as long as it's still occuring then it's a tool like anything else to avoid acts of war. Avoiding acts of war certainly ranks higher on my agenda than foreign aid does.

That's exactly how anti-war liberals think, and exactly why we have to overspend on our military to be the stick to Europe's flaccid carrot.

tyesai
06-14-2012, 20:48
Ron got less attention because if his showing in the last primary, and also because that any news media person that dared to critisize him was hate mail spammed. Groups of rowdy Paul guys chased hannity throwing snowballs at him. So, he was sidelined a bit. But his message got out there, it is the age of the Internet after all. He had money for commercials. Lots of straw polls and computer polls were bum rushed by Paul supporters erroniously showing him with more popularity than he actually had. He was seen and heard at the debates. It just didn't catch on. Look at the republican primary votes in his own district, and they had to know him, he was the congressman for 30 years or so.

Now, the last gasp will likely be some sort of mischief at the convention. Meh? :dunno: should be interesting to watch, but the Paul campaign is calling for the stealth delegates (Paul guys in Romney clothing) to behave themselves.

Guess we'll see.

Look, in one debate he got something like 89 seconds of air time. The internet exposure only does so much. Sure everywhere you and I look we were exposed to him but we are a subculture. The average smuck that goes to work, catches 30 minutes of "news" of their favorite channel had no idea who he was or what he represented and it was very, very, clear that the media was biased. I'm sure after the elections are all over someone is going to make an excellent documentary covering the media bias because there is clearly enough information out to cover this topic.


Mischief at the convention. Well depends on what you mean by mischief. Hell if I was anywhere close to the place I'd go down there and protest. 300,000,000 people in the country and this is the best the Republicans can do? Abortion, torture, NDAA, open borders, PATRIOT Act. He is Obama / Bush and it is quite clear that many people are tired of these warmongering, civil rights destroying criminals.....

If by mischief you mean violence / smashing windows / burning police cars you have the wrong group of people. There may be agents of provocateur but I hate to be the one that points out that the above actions really go against the core values of the people in the liberty movement.

countrygun
06-14-2012, 21:14
Look, in one debate he got something like 89 seconds of air time. The internet exposure only does so much. Sure everywhere you and I look we were exposed to him but we are a subculture. The average smuck that goes to work, catches 30 minutes of "news" of their favorite channel had no idea who he was or what he represented and it was very, very, clear that the media was biased. I'm sure after the elections are all over someone is going to make an excellent documentary covering the media bias because there is clearly enough information out to cover this topic.

The sun got in his eyes

The dog ate his homework

Everybody was picking on him

The voters didn't "understand"


Mischief at the convention. Well depends on what you mean by mischief. Hell if I was anywhere close to the place I'd go down there and protest. 300,000,000 people in the country and this is the best the Republicans can do? Abortion, torture, NDAA, open borders, PATRIOT Act. He is Obama / Bush and it is quite clear that many people are tired of these warmongering, civil rights destroying criminals.....

Remember to carefully skip over the threats of covert Paul delegates at the nominating convention

If by mischief you mean violence / smashing windows / burning police cars you have the wrong group of people. There may be agents of provocateur but I hate to be the one that points out that the above actions really go against the core values of the people in the liberty movement.

But doing things to get Obama reelected is OK?
IMO, the "core values" of the "liberty movement:upeyes:"
have "Losers" written all over them.



What a crock. It's a two-horse race and they are arguing about the color of the paint in the stable.

Goaltender66
06-14-2012, 21:24
Look, in one debate he got something like 89 seconds of air time.

Yeah, back in November. South Carolina he had almost a half hour and was roundly booed a number of times.

In fact, the thing about Paul...he seems to do better the less air time he gets.

Blast
06-14-2012, 22:01
Carrots can be anything. Opening up free trade, supporting a friendly agenda for that country through international bodies such as UN member sponsorship, even foreign aid if the situation is dire enough to consider it, etc. Carrots can be anything. Sure, I'd like to end all foreign aid but as long as it's still occuring then it's a tool like anything else to avoid acts of war. Avoiding acts of war certainly ranks higher on my agenda than foreign aid does.
The "play nice" thing really worked with N. Korea, didn't it?
Iran is continuing to defy the international community despite overtures of "play nice". That worked, right?
When the choices get increasingly limited, hitting the defiers in the wallet becomes necessary. If that doesn't work, it's hammer time. Plain and simple.

tyesai
06-14-2012, 23:10
What a crock. It's a two-horse race and they are arguing about the color of the paint in the stable.

First, I'm unaware of covert threats. Do you have any links to any news stories? It'd be helpful for me to understand where you are coming from. I guess it is possible as there is going to be minority extremist in all groups and if there isn't they will be placed there to help discredit or subvert.

As far as "But doing things to get Obama reelected is OK?
IMO, the "core values" of the "liberty movement"
have "Losers" written all over them." I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only suspect that like so many people you feel the compulsion to lump everyone into neat little groups, either it is A or B. Nobody in the liberty movement is going to be supporting Obama nor do I believe that too many of them are going to be previous Obama supporters.

Look, Obama got elected on Hope and Change. I would have voted for Obama on his promise alone to get out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if I would have believed him. Obama was touted as a rockstar and people fell for it. He didn't get elected through some violent coup.

countrygun
06-14-2012, 23:30
First, I'm unaware of covert threats. Do you have any links to any news stories? It'd be helpful for me to understand where you are coming from. I guess it is possible as there is going to be minority extremist in all groups and if there isn't they will be placed there to help discredit or subvert.


Possible? Is it "possible" that you haven't read the threads on the election and Paul around here?

As far as "But doing things to get Obama reelected is OK?
IMO, the "core values" of the "liberty movement"
have "Losers" written all over them." I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only suspect that like so many people you feel the compulsion to lump everyone into neat little groups

Have you been paying attention to the threads on this forum?


either it is A or B. Nobody in the liberty movement is going to be supporting Obama nor do I believe that too many of them are going to be previous Obama supporters.

Have you not noticed the number of "I won't vote for Romney under any circumstances" folks? you do realize that not electing Romney means Obama gets reelected?

Look, Obama got elected on Hope and Change. I would have voted for Obama on his promise alone to get out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if I would have believed him. Obama was touted as a rockstar and people fell for it. He didn't get elected through some violent coup.



I strongly suggest you go back and read all of the Paulite drivel in this forum BEFORE you elect yourself as spokesman for that group around here.

tyesai
06-15-2012, 01:06
Have you not noticed the number of "I won't vote for Romney under any circumstances" folks? you do realize that not electing Romney means Obama gets reelected?


I'm not going to vote for Romney. This isn't about winning and loosing per say. Where we differ is I that I don't believe it matters that much if it is Romney or Obama. Both are backed by what is essentially the same finance capitalist. Both propagate indefinite detention of Americans, more war, PATRIOT Act, drones spying on Americans, Abortion, government mandated health care, gun grabbing, ect. Neither of them stand for anything that I care to have my name affiliated with. It isn't about winning and loosing to me but it is about what is right. It is about morality and I won't help either one of them continue what is essentially identical political agenda's. Loose the fascination with the R or the D and they are both pieces of S....

It is narrow minded to imply that just because someone doesn't endorse candidate A they are endorsing candidate B. Abstaining from voting for Romney and abstaining voting for Obama doesn't help either one.

Have you been paying attention to the threads on this forum?

No, I don't come here very often, only when things get "interesting". GT is o.k. but I'm not into the statist cop worship and narrow minded one line insults with emoticons that seem to be the main stay of a lot of the non-debate.

It isn't always like that though, sometimes people make some interesting / compelling points and I like to jump in on them. Besides I work 50 plus hours a week, go to school full time, have a wife and two young kids, live in Southern Spain, enjoy scuba diving and the topless senioritas at La Playa way to much to spend all my time on the internet....:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 04:41
Look, in one debate he got something like 89 seconds of air time. The internet exposure only does so much. Sure everywhere you and I look we were exposed to him but we are a subculture. The average smuck that goes to work, catches 30 minutes of "news" of their favorite channel had no idea who he was or what he represented and it was very, very, clear that the media was biased. I'm sure after the elections are all over someone is going to make an excellent documentary covering the media bias because there is clearly enough information out to cover this topic.


Mischief at the convention. Well depends on what you mean by mischief. Hell if I was anywhere close to the place I'd go down there and protest. 300,000,000 people in the country and this is the best the Republicans can do? Abortion, torture, NDAA, open borders, PATRIOT Act. He is Obama / Bush and it is quite clear that many people are tired of these warmongering, civil rights destroying criminals.....

If by mischief you mean violence / smashing windows / burning police cars you have the wrong group of people. There may be agents of provocateur but I hate to be the one that points out that the above actions really go against the core values of the people in the liberty movement.

But back to demonstrable results. How did Ron Paul do in his own congressional district. He served as their congressman off and on since 1976, he is the incumbent congressman, they KNOW this guy, very well.

Fact is, the people at large didn't like him as much as they liked other candidates. The ones that did like him, liked him a lot. There were just not enough votes. Sucks a bit realizing you are in the minority, but that's the way it is.

We'll wait and see. I've been lurking on a few Paul sites, and I've seen everything from threats to riot, wishes and some thinly veiled threats against Romney, most of those wishes are that he would die or be physically unable to be president, and of course the intention of delegates that affirmed they would vote one way when they were chosen as a delegate, but intend to vote contrary to their pledge, even if it causes them to be arrested after. Mischief seemed like a good word.

We'll wait and see, strong disappointments cause strong emotional reactions.

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 04:55
And if you want four more years of Eric Holder, and more appointments like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, pretend there is no difference between Obama and Romney. Fair minded people with a brain know the reality. Paulista extremists are closet (or not so much in the closet) Obama supporters, and show their true colors repeatedly.

QNman
06-15-2012, 06:45
I'm not going to vote for Romney. This isn't about winning and loosing per say. Where we differ is I that I don't believe it matters that much if it is Romney or Obama. Both are backed by what is essentially the same finance capitalist. Both propagate indefinite detention of Americans, more war, PATRIOT Act, drones spying on Americans, Abortion, government mandated health care, gun grabbing, ect. Neither of them stand for anything that I care to have my name affiliated with. It isn't about winning and loosing to me but it is about what is right. It is about morality and I won't help either one of them continue what is essentially identical political agenda's. Loose the fascination with the R or the D and they are both pieces of S....

It is narrow minded to imply that just because someone doesn't endorse candidate A they are endorsing candidate B. Abstaining from voting for Romney and abstaining voting for Obama doesn't help either one.



No, I don't come here very often, only when things get "interesting". GT is o.k. but I'm not into the statist cop worship and narrow minded one line insults with emoticons that seem to be the main stay of a lot of the non-debate.

It isn't always like that though, sometimes people make some interesting / compelling points and I like to jump in on them. Besides I work 50 plus hours a week, go to school full time, have a wife and two young kids, live in Southern Spain, enjoy scuba diving and the topless senioritas at La Playa way to much to spend all my time on the internet....:whistling:

If you live in southern Spain, WGAS which candidate you support or don't??

In other news, since you live inSpain, how's the economy over there?

tyesai
06-15-2012, 09:03
I strongly suggest you go back and read all of the Paulite drivel in this forum BEFORE you elect yourself as spokesman for that group around here.

If you live in southern Spain, WGAS which candidate you support or don't??

In other news, since you live inSpain, how's the economy over there?

I don't know what WGAS is.

The economy in Spain is suffering horrible. The government is just a few steps ahead of ours in economic repression and the Euro doesn't help anyone over here either, it surely doesn't help me when I get paid in dollars....

Lunch can cost up to 50euro for four of us (two adults and two kids, ages 7 and 5). Now add 25-35% depending on the exchange rate and I'm looking at $65 for lunch!

The beach is still free though.....

tyesai
06-15-2012, 09:11
And if you want four more years of Eric Holder, and more appointments like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, pretend there is no difference between Obama and Romney. Fair minded people with a brain know the reality. Paulista extremists are closet (or not so much in the closet) Obama supporters, and show their true colors repeatedly.

Holder is a crook for sure, he could be taken care of if congress had any balls though. I think the problem is is that they are all so incredibly crooked that they are all just in a steady state of blackmail and the anarchy rolls on....

Sotomayor was a Obama appointee but I'm pretty sure Bush had appointed her somewhere to help jump start her career.
99.5% of the people in D.C. that make it anywhere are all vetted in the same circle of globalist scum....They all attend the same schools, run in the same circles, ect,....

tyesai
06-15-2012, 09:26
But back to demonstrable results. How did Ron Paul do in his own congressional district. He served as their congressman off and on since 1976, he is the incumbent congressman, they KNOW this guy, very well.

Fact is, the people at large didn't like him as much as they liked other candidates. The ones that did like him, liked him a lot. There were just not enough votes. Sucks a bit realizing you are in the minority, but that's the way it is.

We'll wait and see. I've been lurking on a few Paul sites, and I've seen everything from threats to riot, wishes and some thinly veiled threats against Romney, most of those wishes are that he would die or be physically unable to be president, and of course the intention of delegates that affirmed they would vote one way when they were chosen as a delegate, but intend to vote contrary to their pledge, even if it causes them to be arrested after. Mischief seemed like a good word.

We'll wait and see, strong disappointments cause strong emotional reactions.

First I always appreciate your coherent, well thought out responses. I don't agree with them more often than not but I appreciate the effort....

Ron Paul supporters were the minority but I feel like we never got a fair shake either. (Is that so hard to admit????) The moderators mocked him, he was cut short on time in several debates, when it looked like he was winning Iowa the media marginalized the caucus, then they just decided to cheat him out of it. Then the media just constantly lambasted him and mocked him, it was disgusting.

That said he made some mistakes as well and with hindsight I wonder if ever was in it to win it. He should have been highlighting he was cheated in Iowa and Maine, he should have been screaming bloody murder but he was silent. It was like he didn't care! He never did attack Romney, not really hard, and then he just says "we aren't campaigning anymore but send money" That was when I became disenchanted....

Next point. In the end I'm fine with it all. The guy has motivated a lot of young people and spread the word of freedom and liberty like nobody else in recent history. I'm still happy with Rand, he is putting up a good fight on things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, drones, ect....I'd still be honored to shake their hand and say hello, at least for the time being....

However if I vote for anyone it will be Gary Johnson.

syntaxerrorsix
06-15-2012, 09:28
I'm not going to vote for Romney. This isn't about winning and loosing per say. Where we differ is I that I don't believe it matters that much if it is Romney or Obama. Both are backed by what is essentially the same finance capitalist. Both propagate indefinite detention of Americans, more war, PATRIOT Act, drones spying on Americans, Abortion, government mandated health care, gun grabbing, ect. Neither of them stand for anything that I care to have my name affiliated with. It isn't about winning and loosing to me but it is about what is right. It is about morality and I won't help either one of them continue what is essentially identical political agenda's. Loose the fascination with the R or the D and they are both pieces of S....

It is narrow minded to imply that just because someone doesn't endorse candidate A they are endorsing candidate B. Abstaining from voting for Romney and abstaining voting for Obama doesn't help either one.





Agreed.

I'd no sooner vote for Mitt than I would Obama.

If that's the best we've got were all in for it much sooner than later.

G19G20
06-15-2012, 15:35
The "play nice" thing really worked with N. Korea, didn't it?
Iran is continuing to defy the international community despite overtures of "play nice". That worked, right?
When the choices get increasingly limited, hitting the defiers in the wallet becomes necessary. If that doesn't work, it's hammer time. Plain and simple.

Israel-firster alert!

Iran isn't breaking any laws whatsoever with their nuclear program. Still no proof of a weapons program, they are an NNPT signor (unlike Israel) and have abided by all requirements under the IAEA. Why are you supporting punishing a country that's not breaking any laws? Last I checked, playing by the rules is playing nice. "Defiers". That's cute.

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 15:39
First I always appreciate your coherent, well thought out responses. I don't agree with them more often than not but I appreciate the effort....

Ron Paul supporters were the minority but I feel like we never got a fair shake either. (Is that so hard to admit????) The moderators mocked him, he was cut short on time in several debates, when it looked like he was winning Iowa the media marginalized the caucus, then they just decided to cheat him out of it. Then the media just constantly lambasted him and mocked him, it was disgusting.

That said he made some mistakes as well and with hindsight I wonder if ever was in it to win it. He should have been highlighting he was cheated in Iowa and Maine, he should have been screaming bloody murder but he was silent. It was like he didn't care! He never did attack Romney, not really hard, and then he just says "we aren't campaigning anymore but send money" That was when I became disenchanted....

Next point. In the end I'm fine with it all. The guy has motivated a lot of young people and spread the word of freedom and liberty like nobody else in recent history. I'm still happy with Rand, he is putting up a good fight on things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, drones, ect....I'd still be honored to shake their hand and say hello, at least for the time being....

However if I vote for anyone it will be Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul had just as much chance as anyone else. He failed. He can buy his way to reelection in a small district in Texas, but couldn't buy enough votes across the nation to win the nomination. Although you are too blinded by adulation to realize it, many of Paul's expressed ideas are childish, hypocritical, pandering and simplistic (which is why they appeal to such a crowd). He lost. Get over it.

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 15:41
Israel-firster alert!

Iran isn't breaking any laws whatsoever with their nuclear program. Still no proof of a weapons program, they are an NNPT signor (unlike Israel) and have abided by all requirements under the IAEA. Why are you supporting punishing a country that's not breaking any laws? Last I checked, playing by the rules is playing nice. "Defiers". That's cute.

America's enemies-first alert! :upeyes:

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 15:47
Holder is a crook for sure, he could be taken care of if congress had any balls though. I think the problem is is that they are all so incredibly crooked that they are all just in a steady state of blackmail and the anarchy rolls on....

Sotomayor was a Obama appointee but I'm pretty sure Bush had appointed her somewhere to help jump start her career.
99.5% of the people in D.C. that make it anywhere are all vetted in the same circle of globalist scum....They all attend the same schools, run in the same circles, ect,....

Well, what has Congressman Ron Paul done about Eric Holder? Nada. I suppose he's too crooked to take any action against Holder, right?

George H.W. Bush, right? In 1991. In the SDNY. So that's the same as putting her into a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? Nice obfuscation. When you can't justify your position, throw a bunch of crap to distract from the real issues. It won't work. We see through you. You support Obama. Just admit it. It's easier to get along in Europe when you support Obama, too.

G19G20
06-15-2012, 15:47
I must have missed where Iran threatened me. Did they send you a letter in the mail?

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 15:53
I must have missed where Iran threatened me. Did they send you a letter in the mail?

You're right. You must have missed where Iranian Quds force operatives and Iranian-supplied weapons have killed dozens of Americans. You also must have missed where Iranian-supplied, trained and financed terrorists in Lebanon killed dozens of Americans. Really? That lame are you? That desperate to toe the Paulista line? You have become a sadly comic figure.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 16:14
Israel-firster alert!

Iran isn't breaking any laws whatsoever with their nuclear program. Still no proof of a weapons program, they are an NNPT signor (unlike Israel) and have abided by all requirements under the IAEA. Why are you supporting punishing a country that's not breaking any laws? Last I checked, playing by the rules is playing nice. "Defiers". That's cute.


Iran and nuclear development.

1. "for energy independence"

Hmm, they have a huge supply of crude oil, yet there isn't a refinery in the Country that can refine it. It would seem that they could be a lot more independent if they could refine their own oil.

2. "for medical purposes"

Again, Hmmm. How many medical facilities do they have that use such radioactive materials, and gee, that type of material is openly available through medical sources a lot cheaper than building the facilities to make it. Do they have that many sick people in that Country?


Other Countries in the world would help them with their needs if those two were really meeting a serious need.

What is the one thing you can do with that type of nuclear material that other Countries might balk at helping them with.....let me think.......

QNman
06-15-2012, 16:50
I don't know what WGAS is.

The economy in Spain is suffering horrible. The government is just a few steps ahead of ours in economic repression and the Euro doesn't help anyone over here either, it surely doesn't help me when I get paid in dollars....

Lunch can cost up to 50euro for four of us (two adults and two kids, ages 7 and 5). Now add 25-35% depending on the exchange rate and I'm looking at $65 for lunch!

The beach is still free though.....

WGAS = Who Gives A S***

QNman
06-15-2012, 16:57
Holder is a crook for sure, he could be taken care of if congress had any balls though. I think the problem is is that they are all so incredibly crooked that they are all just in a steady state of blackmail and the anarchy rolls on....

Sotomayor was a Obama appointee but I'm pretty sure Bush had appointed her somewhere to help jump start her career.
99.5% of the people in D.C. that make it anywhere are all vetted in the same circle of globalist scum....They all attend the same schools, run in the same circles, ect,....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2009/05/26/bush-41-nominated-sotomayor-well-technically.html

Google is your friend. :wavey:

QNman
06-15-2012, 17:00
I must have missed where Iran threatened me. Did they send you a letter in the mail?

You can't be that naive and blind... Can you?

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 17:02
You can't be that naive and blind... Can you?

It is just some of the mental gymnastics required to be a Ron Paul supporter, I'm afraid.

G19G20
06-15-2012, 17:29
You can't be that naive and blind... Can you?

I guess I am. Enlighten me on when Iran threatened me please.

You're right. You must have missed where Iranian Quds force operatives and Iranian-supplied weapons have killed dozens of Americans. You also must have missed where Iranian-supplied, trained and financed terrorists in Lebanon killed dozens of Americans. Really? That lame are you? That desperate to toe the Paulista line? You have become a sadly comic figure.

Were those Americans in the United States? Was I in Iraq and Lebanon and totally forgot about it? It's funny listening to you guys try to find justifications for threatening a country of millions of people. Didn't we nearly invade Cuba over the USSR putting nukes right outside our border? But yall act all threatened when/if another country reacts similarly to putting OUR troops and weapons on their border. Odd. But to diffuse that situation we used diplomacy instead of threats. For all the love you guys have for Reagan you sure didn't learn much from him.

fortyofforty
06-15-2012, 17:47
I guess I am. Enlighten me on when Iran threatened me please.



Were those Americans in the United States? Was I in Iraq and Lebanon and totally forgot about it? It's funny listening to you guys try to find justifications for threatening a country of millions of people. Didn't we nearly invade Cuba over the USSR putting nukes right outside our border? But yall act all threatened when/if another country reacts similarly to putting OUR troops and weapons on their border. Odd. But to diffuse that situation we used diplomacy instead of threats. For all the love you guys have for Reagan you sure didn't learn much from him.

So Americans are legitimate targets anywhere in the world? It's open season on Americans, then. To support Ron Paul you have to sell your soul. He lost. Thank goodness.

In order to support Ron Paul's foreign policy, Paulistas need to believe in the moral equivalency of the United States and [FILL IN ANY TOTALITARIAN, EVIL REGIME IN WORLD HISTORY HERE]. That is one more reason I would never vote for that dope Paul.

Please enlighten me. Does any American have the right to travel anywhere in the world in peace without being killed? If the American military sends forces to provide security or food or other aid, are they legitimate targets for Iran? Does the United States have the equal right to attack any and all Iranians anywhere in the world in response to Iranian provocations? If not, why not?

And are you truly so ignorant you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved diplomatically, without threats? Really? I suggest you read a bit more. Try Google. Look up blockade, while you're at it. You are frighteningly ignorant of history.

You don't even realize how ignorant you sound, which makes it even worse.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 18:07
First I always appreciate your coherent, well thought out responses. I don't agree with them more often than not but I appreciate the effort....

Ron Paul supporters were the minority but I feel like we never got a fair shake either. (Is that so hard to admit????) The moderators mocked him, he was cut short on time in several debates, when it looked like he was winning Iowa the media marginalized the caucus, then they just decided to cheat him out of it. Then the media just constantly lambasted him and mocked him, it was disgusting.

That said he made some mistakes as well and with hindsight I wonder if ever was in it to win it. He should have been highlighting he was cheated in Iowa and Maine, he should have been screaming bloody murder but he was silent. It was like he didn't care! He never did attack Romney, not really hard, and then he just says "we aren't campaigning anymore but send money" That was when I became disenchanted....

Next point. In the end I'm fine with it all. The guy has motivated a lot of young people and spread the word of freedom and liberty like nobody else in recent history. I'm still happy with Rand, he is putting up a good fight on things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, drones, ect....I'd still be honored to shake their hand and say hello, at least for the time being....

However if I vote for anyone it will be Gary Johnson.



Oh, I'll happily admit that I think that most Paul supporters don't think they got a fair shot. I just honestly disagree with them as to the cause, and the amount of the effect.

He had a very vocal, but small loyal following. Still does. If he cannot pull off a trojan horse victory at the convention, his supporters will be begging him to run third party.

Oh well, I don't hate the guy, I just don't think he is THE guy. Maybe Rand will be some day.

It will be an interesting show to watch.

MassGOP Allocation Committee bounces delegates and alternates for "failure to follow the rules" (http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/14903/massgop-allocation-committee-bounces-delegates-and-alternates-for-failure-to-follow-the-rules)
by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno
Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 15:26:06 PM EDT

Red Mass Group has learned that the Allocation Committee of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee has informed seventeen delegates and alternates that they are not qualified to go to the convention in Tampa. The reason given is failure to return the proper, signed, affidavit by the given deadline. Allocation Committee Chairman, Ed McGrath, told Red Mass Group in an emailed statement that, "no one who was elected as a delegate and who has followed the rules has been disqualified so far."


There might be a lot of that going around in the near future.


This was posted on a Ron Paul forum in response to that story, each number is a different poster:

1. I sure hope the delegates go to Tampa to be seated anyways. This whole thing is getting out of hand by the RNC. That lawsuit better work or I can see a lot of riots in Florida.

2. I really wish people had signed the affidavit and returned it. As long as it wasn't notarized (under oath), it didn't have any legal power whatsoever.

3. http://i.imgur.com/jYGE8.jpg
seems they want to do this the hard way.

4. They like war ... we got their war.

5. Letter bombs and Ad bombs (need chip in).

We aren't idiots here. We know that ideas are the way to protest not rocks. The more the RNC does this, the louder those ideas become at a focal point, and that focal point is Tampa.

6. "You all get together unarmed, with rocks, and allow us to arrest you, gass you, and beat you up"

Do you think that is a good game plan? I think that is a LOUSY game plan. Who came up with this game plan anyway? This is a LOUSY characterization. Just follow our dream for you. Oh yeah.

Money bomb - Advertisment bomb in the media everywhere is the way to do it right before Tampa. The worst they act, the more it will spread.




It will be interesting to watch. Be careful out there.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 18:12
I must have missed where Iran threatened me. Did they send you a letter in the mail?

They threatened America, so maybe you are OK.




































Jeez, where have you been?

Try googling "Death to America Iran" See what pops up. Then try Googling "twelver"


It may open your mind a bit.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 18:14
I guess I am. Enlighten me on when Iran threatened me please.



Were those Americans in the United States? Was I in Iraq and Lebanon and totally forgot about it? It's funny listening to you guys try to find justifications for threatening a country of millions of people. Didn't we nearly invade Cuba over the USSR putting nukes right outside our border? But yall act all threatened when/if another country reacts similarly to putting OUR troops and weapons on their border. Odd. But to diffuse that situation we used diplomacy instead of threats. For all the love you guys have for Reagan you sure didn't learn much from him.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/6a00d8341bf80c53ef015390e305b6970b-320wi.jpg&sa=X&ei=vs_bT9qhJOmM2gXTsuj5Cg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG5HJ02rW__N1YbPSUTIvyTivLwfQ


You can disregard my previous post. I know what side you are on now.

QNman
06-15-2012, 19:16
I guess I am. Enlighten me on when Iran threatened me please.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/6a00d8341bf80c53ef015390e305b6970b-320wi.jpg&sa=X&ei=vs_bT9qhJOmM2gXTsuj5Cg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG5HJ02rW__N1YbPSUTIvyTivLwfQ


You can disregard my previous post. I know what side you are on now.

We all do. Apparently our local Paul troll has to be threatened PERSONALLY before he considers himself threatened.

What a great American this one is.

I'm trying to figure out who he reminds me of...

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 20:08
We all do. Apparently our local Paul troll has to be threatened PERSONALLY before he considers himself threatened.

What a great American this one is.

I'm trying to figure out who he reminds me of...

Probably one of those sovereign citizen wacko's. Individualism is a virtue to a point, and a sin beyond a reasonable point.


When it's all about you, and only you, stay the hell out of my foxhole.

G19G20
06-15-2012, 21:53
So Americans are legitimate targets anywhere in the world? It's open season on Americans, then. To support Ron Paul you have to sell your soul. He lost. Thank goodness.

And here we are, having come full circle. That's why we GET THEM OUT OF THERE! Bring all the troops home. That's been Paul's and my own argument the entire time. No deaths in Iraq or Lebanon if we don't have troops scattered all over the world pissing someone off.


In order to support Ron Paul's foreign policy, Paulistas need to believe in the moral equivalency of the United States and [FILL IN ANY TOTALITARIAN, EVIL REGIME IN WORLD HISTORY HERE]. That is one more reason I would never vote for that dope Paul.

Still not sure why you think you're any better than the average Iranian. You're both average so who cares what country you're from?


Please enlighten me. Does any American have the right to travel anywhere in the world in peace without being killed?

Sure and they do it all the time. They're called tourists.


If the American military sends forces to provide security or food or other aid, are they legitimate targets for Iran? Does the United States have the equal right to attack any and all Iranians anywhere in the world in response to Iranian provocations? If not, why not?

You said "in peace". Invading neighboring countries isn't coming "in peace". If the Iranian military was setting up shop in Cuba or Ontario then you'd have a point. You're making utterly false comparisons.


And are you truly so ignorant you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved diplomatically, without threats? Really? I suggest you read a bit more. Try Google. Look up blockade, while you're at it. You are frighteningly ignorant of history.

Why don't you back up your argument instead of telling me to "Google It".


You don't even realize how ignorant you sound, which makes it even worse.

I wonder who the ignorant ones are when gas shoots to $10 a gallon if anything more than threats and sanctions takes place. Will you still support this warmongering when your family can't afford gas to get to work and feed the kids?

G19G20
06-15-2012, 22:00
They threatened America, so maybe you are OK.


Jeez, where have you been?

Try googling "Death to America Iran" See what pops up. Then try Googling "twelver"


It may open your mind a bit.

Protestors say a lot of things. Are you seriously worried about any of those people actually coming here to harm you? And the twelver stuff, sorry I don't buy into the holy war aspect of this whole thing on either side. That's really all it's boiling down to now. Christians and Jews vs Muslims. Again. A new holy war and I'll have no part in supporting it. Life is too short to worry about religious crap and the extremists that subscribe to them all.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 22:47
Protestors say a lot of things. Are you seriously worried about any of those people actually coming here to harm you? And the twelver stuff, sorry I don't buy into the holy war aspect of this whole thing on either side. That's really all it's boiling down to now. Christians and Jews vs Muslims. Again. A new holy war and I'll have no part in supporting it. Life is too short to worry about religious crap and the extremists that subscribe to them all.



Did he just say what I think he did?

tyesai
06-15-2012, 23:31
Ron Paul had just as much chance as anyone else. He failed. He can buy his way to reelection in a small district in Texas, but couldn't buy enough votes across the nation to win the nomination. Although you are too blinded by adulation to realize it, many of Paul's expressed ideas are childish, hypocritical, pandering and simplistic (which is why they appeal to such a crowd). He lost. Get over it.

I am fine with it. He was just a voice for a time being on the national stage.

Can you please tell me what is so childish, hypocritical, pandering and simplistic about advocating your rights / fiscal responsibility?

Well, what has Congressman Ron Paul done about Eric Holder? Nada. I suppose he's too crooked to take any action against Holder, right?

George H.W. Bush, right? In 1991. In the SDNY. So that's the same as putting her into a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? Nice obfuscation. When you can't justify your position, throw a bunch of crap to distract from the real issues. It won't work. We see through you. You support Obama. Just admit it. It's easier to get along in Europe when you support Obama, too.

First, it isn't a distraction, that 99.5% of the crooks are all connected and vetted in the same circle. She can't be demon spawn if one republican liked her enough for one job. It was a republican after all.

Second, what is your guys fascination with Ron Paul supporters supporting Obama. It is nonsensical. I have stated that it might be better to leave Obama in office rather than put in a new distractor but that has nothing to do with supporting him.

Lastly I just tell people I'm Canadian on holiday rather than American because inevitably the next question is "what do you do?" and I don't like to admit what I do anymore if I don't have to.

G19G20
06-16-2012, 01:40
Did he just say what I think he did?

Yep I did. Why are you asking others to defend your position?

fortyofforty
06-16-2012, 05:50
And here we are, having come full circle. That's why we GET THEM OUT OF THERE! Bring all the troops home. That's been Paul's and my own argument the entire time. No deaths in Iraq or Lebanon if we don't have troops scattered all over the world pissing someone off.

OK, bring all the troops home from everywhere. And bring all the diplomats home, too, since they've also been targets. And bring all the businessmen home, too, since they can't be protected either. That's a good strategy. I've called it the Ron Paul turtle foreign policy. This is why. Thanks for validating my depiction.

Still not sure why you think you're any better than the average Iranian. You're both average so who cares what country you're from?

Because I don't want to kill him, and he wants to kill me. If he didn't seek to kill all Americans, all Jews, all Christians, all infidels, all apostates, or whatever, I would have no issues with him at all. I'm also not crazy about how he treats religious minorities, gays and women.

Sure and they do it all the time. They're called tourists.

They're also called kidnap victims, murder victims, soft targets.

You said "in peace". Invading neighboring countries isn't coming "in peace". If the Iranian military was setting up shop in Cuba or Ontario then you'd have a point. You're making utterly false comparisons.

How is what we do in Iraq justification for Iran to invade a neighboring country and kill Iraqis and Americans? Oh, right. They are America's enemy so they can do no wrong. I forgot the Paulista ideology.

Why don't you back up your argument instead of telling me to "Google It".

You claimed that the Cuban Missile Crisis was handled peacefully and diplomatically, without threats. You made the claim. Back it up, genius.

I wonder who the ignorant ones are when gas shoots to $10 a gallon if anything more than threats and sanctions takes place. Will you still support this warmongering when your family can't afford gas to get to work and feed the kids?

What would the price of gas be if Iran had a free hand to take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Who would stop them? Nodamnbody. What would the price of gasoline have been if Saddam Hussein had taken over and stayed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Exactly. Enjoy walking to work, genius. Enjoy eating only what you can grow in your garden. Enjoy $50 per gallon gasoline. That's Ron Paul's world. Great picture. Your ignorance is colossal, although I suspect it is more that you have to present a certain image of world history to justify the Paulista turtle foreign policy.

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 06:13
Protestors say a lot of things. Are you seriously worried about any of those people actually coming here to harm you? And the twelver stuff, sorry I don't buy into the holy war aspect of this whole thing on either side. That's really all it's boiling down to now. Christians and Jews vs Muslims. Again. A new holy war and I'll have no part in supporting it. Life is too short to worry about religious crap and the extremists that subscribe to them all.

Protestors? That is a state run rally.

http://www.wnd.com/images2/mahmoud3.jpg

It's not necessary for you to believe the same thing the twelvers believe, it's only necessary for them to believe it. Not everyone in the world is afraid of a fight, even one that will, by prophesy, kill 2/3 of the worlds population. How much difference do you think there is between a rocket that can put a satellite into orbit and an ICBM? Just how old do you think ICBM technology is?

I'm not worried about them killing me, they will be short on ammo, and likely pick large population centers. Mutually assured destruction works against people that don't want to die. And yes, there are people that are less afraid of death than you are in the world. There is only a slight difference between dismissing the boogeyman, and sticking your head in the sand. It is more dependent on what they believe than what you believe.

Just an observation, but Ron Paul's and your foreign policy is dependent on a fallacy. That if we leave the world alone, the world will return the favor.

kirgi08
06-16-2012, 09:48
OK, bring all the troops home from everywhere. And bring all the diplomats home, too, since they've also been targets. And bring all the businessmen home, too, since they can't be protected either. That's a good strategy. I've called it the Ron Paul turtle foreign policy. This is why. Thanks for validating my depiction.



Because I don't want to kill him, and he wants to kill me. If he didn't seek to kill all Americans, all Jews, all Christians, all infidels, all apostates, or whatever, I would have no issues with him at all. I'm also not crazy about how he treats religious minorities, gays and women.



They're also called kidnap victims, murder victims, soft targets.



How is what we do in Iraq justification for Iran to invade a neighboring country and kill Iraqis and Americans? Oh, right. They are America's enemy so they can do no wrong. I forgot the Paulista ideology.



You claimed that the Cuban Missile Crisis was handled peacefully and diplomatically, without threats. You made the claim. Back it up, genius.



What would the price of gas be if Iran had a free hand to take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Who would stop them? Nodamnbody. What would the price of gasoline have been if Saddam Hussein had taken over and stayed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Exactly. Enjoy walking to work, genius. Enjoy eating only what you can grow in your garden. Enjoy $50 per gallon gasoline. That's Ron Paul's world. Great picture. Your ignorance is colossal, although I suspect it is more that you have to present a certain image of world history to justify the Paulista turtle foreign policy.

I gotta see her response ta this.'08.

I reckon RPs :fishing: season is open.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 10:01
Yep I did. Why are you asking others to defend your position?


Not at all, you are the one that "took a positiion" in denial of reality. It rather ignores 9/11 and even more importantly, and in a bout of complete ignorance, ignores the fact that the people who are trying to kill us DON'T PLAY BY "PAUL BOT's RULES" They are so dumb that they don't know you have issued an edict saying that, you don't like the rules and don't want to play in their game. I am sure if they knew how you felt they would just go away and not bother us.

We should just tell them, that no matter how many people they kill, how many Countries they throw into chaos, and how many Americans they kill, we are going to stick out fingers in our ears and say "not listening, can't hear you" until they get tired of what they are doing, that'll show them.

QNman
06-16-2012, 10:31
Protestors say a lot of things. Are you seriously worried about any of those people actually coming here to harm you? And the twelver stuff, sorry I don't buy into the holy war aspect of this whole thing on either side. That's really all it's boiling down to now. Christians and Jews vs Muslims. Again. A new holy war and I'll have no part in supporting it. Life is too short to worry about religious crap and the extremists that subscribe to them all.

You know it's their President fueling these protests, right? You know, the one who openly refers to us as the "great Satan", that guy. And the Mullahs pull the presidents strings over there - no separation of church and state.

Doc already covered the basics - YOU don't have to "believe" anything. And YOU don't have to agree to a holy war if it's brought to your door. Disbelief will not protect you from the radiation.

And not a single Iranian need leave home to launch an attack on us.

walt cowan
06-18-2012, 06:41
here we go again...the boogie man is going to get you. please!

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 07:05
here we go again...the boogie man is going to get you. please!

There is a very thin line between dismissing boogymen and sticking your head in the sand. The difference depends on what others think, not what you think. It's a fact that not everyone in the world share your noninterventionist ideals.

Do some looking on your own, and after, tell us all what you think the leadership in Iran believe.

kirgi08
06-18-2012, 07:17
Iran is gonna get interesting.With the present nut job leaving and his infighting with the "supreme" leader.'08.

Sorry :arg:

walt cowan
06-18-2012, 09:20
There is a very thin line between dismissing boogymen and sticking your head in the sand. The difference depends on what others think, not what you think. It's a fact that not everyone in the world share your noninterventionist ideals.

Do some looking on your own, and after, tell us all what you think the leadership in Iran believe.

yes, american interventionist ideas (sticking our nose up everybodys butt) has worked out so well. lets see...south america, western africa, middel east, easter europe and so on. each had it's own boogieman to scare us into action. as far as what iran leadership belives or not....iran has a embassy in washington d.c.. call them and hear it first hand from them.

fortyofforty
06-18-2012, 09:30
yes, american interventionist ideas (sticking our nose up everybodys butt) has worked out so well. lets see...south america, western africa, middel east, easter europe and so on. each had it's own boogieman to scare us into action.

You're right. How dare we intervene in Hitler's affairs? By what right did we go "sticking our nose up [Hitler's] butt"? How dare we go and stick our nose up South Korea's butt, when all North Korea wanted was to be friends? Intervening never works, ever. We have no right. :rofl:

walt cowan
06-18-2012, 09:31
Iran is gonna get interesting.With the present nut job leaving and his infighting with the "supreme" leader.'08.

Sorry :arg:

:rofl:unlike us, we just change the name on the letter head.:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 09:31
yes, american interventionist ideas (sticking our nose up everybodys butt) has worked out so well. lets see...south america, western africa, middel east, easter europe and so on. each had it's own boogieman to scare us into action. as far as what iran leadership belives or not....iran has a embassy in washington d.c.. call them and hear it first hand from them.

Well we all have our own ideas about what we should have done, but that is water under the bridge. Now is the time to worry about what we should do.

Have you researched the political situation an religious beliefs of the Iranian leadership? Take that into account with their technological ability, including satellite launches, and then tell me how you would deal with them.

countrygun
06-18-2012, 09:50
You're right. How dare we intervene in Hitler's affairs? By what right did we go "sticking our nose up [Hitler's] butt"? How dare we go and stick our nose up South Korea's butt, when all North Korea wanted was to be friends? Intervening never works, ever. We have no right. :rofl:

Look at the side effects of our meddling. We stopped Saddam's "Jumping Jack Flash" program with the Kurds, they thought it was a Gassss.

I have no idea why we are anywhere near the middle east? There has never been any proof that radical Islam is any danger to any Americans at all. We asked for 9/11 and we just haven't apologized hard enough for causing it.

For history buffs, which 3 letter Agency, from which Country, had a hand in bringing Che to his just desserts?

We probably don't need a military presence in Asia and the Pacific Rim either. Taiwan is getting tired of having us around and Japan has never been happy about us standing in the way of a unified Asia, even if it would be under China.

tyesai
06-18-2012, 09:58
You're right. How dare we intervene in Hitler's affairs? By what right did we go "sticking our nose up [Hitler's] butt"? How dare we go and stick our nose up South Korea's butt, when all North Korea wanted was to be friends? Intervening never works, ever. We have no right. :rofl:

Ahhh yes, WWII, saving the Jews, shining light on the hill. You are superior because of your birth lotto. Jesus only loves Americans......

Pledge of Allegiance - The Whitest Kids U'Know on IFC - YouTube

kirgi08
06-18-2012, 10:02
Foolish mortal.'08.

ferals eat..................

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 10:38
Foolish mortal.'08.

ferals eat..................

There are plant eaters, and meat eaters. Such is the way of the world.

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 10:44
Ahhh yes, WWII, saving the Jews, shining light on the hill. You are superior because of your birth lotto. Jesus only loves Americans......

Pledge of Allegiance - The Whitest Kids U'Know on IFC - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618U-_8o31k)

Well, we all remember which side Spain was on.

fortyofforty
06-18-2012, 11:01
Ahhh yes, WWII, saving the Jews, shining light on the hill. You are superior because of your birth lotto. Jesus only loves Americans......

Pledge of Allegiance - The Whitest Kids U'Know on IFC - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618U-_8o31k)

Still hate Jews for being born Jewish, do you? They are less than human, after all, and deserved no protection. That's some birth lotto system you're worshiping, there. You are superior because you were not born Jewish. Take a minute to start a pogrom, and get it out of your system. It's amazing the anti-Semitic hatred on display, especially from ignorant Paulistas. Jesus apparently only loved Spaniards, especially while they were murdering the American Indians.

QNman
06-18-2012, 14:08
You're right. How dare we intervene in Hitler's affairs? By what right did we go "sticking our nose up [Hitler's] butt"? How dare we go and stick our nose up South Korea's butt, when all North Korea wanted was to be friends? Intervening never works, ever. We have no right. :rofl:

Don't forget, the French stuck their nose in Britains business in the 1770's and 1780's...

QNman
06-18-2012, 14:16
Still hate Jews for being born Jewish, do you? They are less than human, after all, and deserved no protection. That's some birth lotto system you're worshiping, there. You are superior because you were not born Jewish. Take a minute to start a pogrom, and get it out of your system. It's amazing the anti-Semitic hatred on display, especially from ignorant Paulistas. Jesus apparently only loved Spaniards, especially while they were murdering the American Indians.

Hey. They weren't murdering - they were ministering hard. "Renounce your religion and accept my righteous one or die".

tyesai
06-19-2012, 02:24
Well, we all remember which side Spain was on.

LOL....I only live in Spain because because the Air Force sent me here....I'm not Spanish jajajajajaja...

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 05:21
LOL....I only live in Spain because because the Air Force sent me here....I'm not Spanish jajajajajaja...

Oh, my bad, you just acted spanish.

Goaltender66
06-19-2012, 05:34
Oh, my bad, you just acted spanish.

Indeed, I'm thinking he went native.

walt cowan
06-19-2012, 15:30
You're right. How dare we intervene in Hitler's affairs? By what right did we go "sticking our nose up [Hitler's] butt"? How dare we go and stick our nose up South Korea's butt, when all North Korea wanted was to be friends? Intervening never works, ever. We have no right. :rofl:

i like to point out that if folks like ford and other "americans" had not funded adolf in 32...ww2 would not have happen. also the us state department threw cash and gold at stalin too.

walt cowan
06-19-2012, 15:38
Well we all have our own ideas about what we should have done, but that is water under the bridge. Now is the time to worry about what we should do.

Have you researched the political situation an religious beliefs of the Iranian leadership? Take that into account with their technological ability, including satellite launches, and then tell me how you would deal with them.

2000 folks were murdered in chicago just last year and million invaders have crossed our souther border. where you want that air strike?:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 15:58
2000 folks were murdered in chicago just last year and million invaders have crossed our souther border. where you want that air strike?:supergrin:

Well, no one said we had to do an air strike.

For Chicago, I'd change all the gun laws to mirror what has been done in Texas.

For the 12 to 20 million invaders, that's an easy one.

First, create an "I used to be an illegal alien" ID card that is verifiable over the internet. Make it a felony to assist an unidentified illegal in obtaining fraudulent documentation, punishable by $5000 and 5 years in jail per count.

Then allow 1 year for all illegals to get theirs. While educating everyone on what is to come.

After 1 year, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 1 year in jail and $1000, to be, or to hire an illegal without the ID card.

After 18 months, it's a felony, punishable by 5 years in jail, or $50,000 fine for being an illegal, or hiring one without the ID card. Offer a $1000 dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of any duly identified illegals. $1500 per Illegal captured if the finder happens to be otherwise unemployed (putting Americans back to work) We have to watch spending, so cap it at say..... $100,000 per year per household.

After 2 years, all social services (food stamps, housing, public education etc) stop for all illegals & their non US citizen family members without the ID card. Schools found to have illegal aliens enrolled are fined $500 for each week that an illegal alien attended, per student. All Illegals found, regardless of how, without the ID card are deported.

We then get to decide how many we want to allow to stay, and how many should go. We also get to decide, on whatever criteria we'd like, who stays and who goes. I'm for automatically deporting everyone with more than two arrests for non-immigration misdemeanor offenses. Any convictions of any felony should get them an automatic ticket home.

We don't want to break up any families, so anchor babies must be considered. If it is decided that one or both parents must be deported, then the parents go, period, end of discussion on that point. The child will be allowed to go with his/her parents, or they can stay in the USA at the parents expense if suitable supervision can be arranged.

Since we will finally have access to demographics on this hidden culture, we can decide how much we should give them in the form of social services. How many non-working family members per worker will be allowed. What the illegal immigrant minimum wage should be. How much they will pay in taxes & If there should be limits on their stay.



There will be crooks among them, there will also be high quality people. We should consider a path to permanent resident alien (non-voting) status for the top performers based on whatever criteria we choose.


If you remove the financial benefits on both the supply and demand sides of the equation, and positively ID all of them, you can start to manage the population.


But back to Iran. Are they a problem or not, will doing nothing or doing something solve that problem?????
:popcorn:

fortyofforty
06-19-2012, 16:23
i like to point out that if folks like ford and other "americans" had not funded adolf in 32...ww2 would not have happen. also the us state department threw cash and gold at stalin too.

i like to point out that if the socialists in the soviet union had not helped rebuild the german military after ww1, hitler would never have been able to have such a strong military by 1939. i also like to point out that if the terms of the treaty of versailles had been enforced hitler would have been removed from power and germany severely punished. i like to point out how weakness in the western powers and a disunited front allowed germany to grow in strength. and i like to point out how the failure to recognize or admit how hitler and stalin treated their own people meant inaction which led to tens of millions of deaths unnecessarily. also "american" natsos always had much in common with the socialists in other countries like germany and ussr and always excused their deplorable "excesses" as necessary. the natsos haven't changed much, i see, just the countries they support.

QNman
06-19-2012, 17:10
i like to point out that if folks like ford and other "americans" had not funded adolf in 32...ww2 would not have happen. also the us state department threw cash and gold at stalin too.

Does aluminum work, or do you have a stash of real tinfoil somewhere?

countrygun
06-19-2012, 19:05
Does aluminum work, or do you have a stash of real tinfoil somewhere?

he has a better grasp of history than you do,

Look at the connection between Ford and the German auto industry and the development of the assembly line in Germany and the "Folks Car" (Volkswagon)

Don't forget Charles Lindberg and his impressions of Germany that led him to being a "neutralist"

GAFinch
06-19-2012, 19:21
Nazis/Fascists and Communists were both Marxist movements and were both supported by many Americans and Europeans. When National Socialist Hitler (and Mussolini) betrayed Communist Stalin, only then did Americans and Europeans turn against him.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 19:26
Little known piece of American History.


Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, NYC, 1938 - YouTube

QNman
06-19-2012, 21:19
he has a better grasp of history than you do,

Look at the connection between Ford and the German auto industry and the development of the assembly line in Germany and the "Folks Car" (Volkswagon)

Don't forget Charles Lindberg and his impressions of Germany that led him to being a "neutralist"

Hardly. I know what he's talking about, and in his context, it seems to me that he has somehow linked Ford's help of Germany in the early 30's somehow propelled Hitler to power and ultimately contributed to his reign. Perhaps I took it further than intended, perhaps not.

Syclone538
06-19-2012, 21:24
If we had never entered WW1, maybe the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have been so extreme and maybe Hitler never would have came to power.

Anyway, back on topic...


Ron Paul: There's "No Way" I'm Ready to Endorse Romney - YouTube

countrygun
06-19-2012, 22:40
Actually our presence loosened the Treaty of Versailles. The French and British had harsher proposals and demands. So maybe if we hadn't it would have been MORE extreme and Hitler might not have been able to come to power. Of course the Germans might have won

Syclone538
06-19-2012, 22:50
Actually our presence loosened the Treaty of Versailles. The French and British had harsher proposals and demands. So maybe if we hadn't it would have been MORE extreme and Hitler might not have been able to come to power. Of course the Germans might have won

I was thinking a negotiated conditional peace vs unconditional surrender, but you have a point also.

countrygun
06-19-2012, 23:34
Wilson wanted everybody happy so they would join The League of Nations.

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 04:34
If we had never entered WW1, maybe the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have been so extreme and maybe Hitler never would have came to power.

Anyway, back on topic...


Ron Paul: There's "No Way" I'm Ready to Endorse Romney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rM5lFJ4i4)

Of course he's not ready now, he hasn't been offered anything yet. If it happens, it will be at the convention.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 08:15
Actually our presence loosened the Treaty of Versailles. The French and British had harsher proposals and demands. So maybe if we hadn't it would have been MORE extreme and Hitler might not have been able to come to power. Of course the Germans might have won

And if the harsh reparations imposed on France by Prussia following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 hadn't been so onerous, then France would not have had reason to seek to punish Germany following WWI. And so it goes. That is what history is all about, and why Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals are so naive. He constantly ignores historical context.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 15:08
he has a better grasp of history than you do,

Look at the connection between Ford and the German auto industry and the development of the assembly line in Germany and the "Folks Car" (Volkswagon)

Don't forget Charles Lindberg and his impressions of Germany that led him to being a "neutralist"

Don't forget NYC based Standard Oil too, which provided nearly all the fuel for Hitler's air forces during WW2. Then there's Chase Bank and Union Banking that provided most of the financial support to the economically depressed Germans. Chase Bank was run by Nelson Rockefeller and Union Banking by none other than Prescott Bush, GWB's granddaddy. The history is ghastly.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 16:15
Don't forget NYC based Standard Oil too, which provided nearly all the fuel for Hitler's air forces during WW2. Then there's Chase Bank and Union Banking that provided most of the financial support to the economically depressed Germans. Chase Bank was run by Nelson Rockefeller and Union Banking by none other than Prescott Bush, GWB's granddaddy. The history is ghastly.

And who can forget Armand Hammer, named by his Socialist parents after the symbol of the Socialist Labor Party of America, and big supporter of the Soviet Union?

Or who can forget lifelong Democrat Bernard Schwartz's dealings with China as head of Loral Space & Communications, encouraged by the Clinton Administration (which received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from shady Chinese sources), the result of which being that China increased its nuclear warfighting capability immensely?

It's true. America's ties with--and support of some Americans for--murderous regimes has a long and sordid history.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 16:18
You're catching on forty. The same people and familes and corporations finance both sides of every war and have been doing it to enrichen themselves for centuries. This is why most recent wars are based on propaganda. Some people get very rich (and even richer) when they're able to finance and supply both sides of wars. Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Think about it.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 16:35
You're catching on forty. The same people and familes and corporations finance both sides of every war and have been doing it to enrichen themselves for centuries. This is why most recent wars are based on propaganda. Some people get very rich (and even richer) when they're able to finance and supply both sides of wars. Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Think about it.

And some Congressmen get very rich while championing the poor and middle class. You're catching on G19. The same families think they own politics and pass on political power from generation to generation.

But if you think the reason we go to war is merely to enrich some fatcat businessmen, you're naive and ignorant of history. Maybe if you study a little more you'll finally get it.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 16:52
You're catching on forty. The same people and familes and corporations finance both sides of every war and have been doing it to enrichen themselves for centuries. This is why most recent wars are based on propaganda. Some people get very rich (and even richer) when they're able to finance and supply both sides of wars. Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Think about it.


I hate to tell you, but "the poor" don't have any wealth, that's why we call them "the poor".

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 16:54
I hate to tell you, but "the poor" don't have any wealth, that's why we call them "the poor".

Stop pointing out the logical fallacies of Marxism. You'll put college professors out of work!

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 17:28
Ahhh yes, WWII, saving the Jews, shining light on the hill. You are superior because of your birth lotto. Jesus only loves Americans......



My grandfather and four of his brothers joined the Navy within a week after Pearl Harbor. They all fought in the Pacific, and luckily all returned home.

It's a shame they are all gone now. I'd loved to have seen you meet them.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 17:38
Stop pointing out the logical fallacies of Marxism. You'll put college professors out of work!


Nah, the Marxist professors will just point out that the poor are "entitled" to be wealthy it's just that the rich are keeping them from it.

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 17:58
You're catching on forty. The same people and familes and corporations finance both sides of every war and have been doing it to enrichen themselves for centuries. This is why most recent wars are based on propaganda. Some people get very rich (and even richer) when they're able to finance and supply both sides of wars. Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Think about it.

People do business with each other for mutual benefit. Well just stop the world from spinning on that revelation.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.webeengone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Albert-Einstein-Duh.jpg&sa=X&ei=F2PiT-W3CKOM2gX_oa3PCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFlbRIRWEBAPVhpXV1xpa3mCvErMA

And occasionally, people that do business with one another, hide their ultimate goals. That's called competition.

I've used ketchup on my french fries before. But that doesn't mean that I like John Kerry's wife, or the french.

Just something to think about.........




Finish the bag of chips, and toss the tinfoil.......

countrygun
06-20-2012, 18:18
You're catching on forty. The same people and familes and corporations finance both sides of every war and have been doing it to enrichen themselves for centuries. This is why most recent wars are based on propaganda. Some people get very rich (and even richer) when they're able to finance and supply both sides of wars. Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Think about it.


You don't give to whoops in Hades about the international business on moral grounds. You just envy the rich and use the topic to poke at them.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 18:25
You don't give to whoops in Hades about the international business on moral grounds. You just envy the rich and use the topic to poke at them.

You have to admit it's amusing to watch Marxists argue in one breath that businessmen were getting rich trading with Hitler and Stalin, then in the next breath argue that businessmen needed war in order to get rich trading with both sides. Even their own beliefs are inconsistent, self-contradictory, and illogical, but they don't see it.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 18:35
People do business with each other for mutual benefit. Well just stop the world from spinning on that revelation.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.webeengone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Albert-Einstein-Duh.jpg&sa=X&ei=F2PiT-W3CKOM2gX_oa3PCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFlbRIRWEBAPVhpXV1xpa3mCvErMA

And occasionally, people that do business with one another, hide their ultimate goals. That's called competition.

I've used ketchup on my french fries before. But that doesn't mean that I like John Kerry's wife, or the french.

Just something to think about.........




Finish the bag of chips, and toss the tinfoil.......

How many people die over your use of ketchup? Apples and oranges comparison. My point is that Im firmly convinced that most wars, particularly wars the US gets involved in, are started first for financial reasons, second for idealogical reasons, third for strategic goals. Often financial and strategic are one and the same, particularly for the small elite group that pulls the strings behind the scenes (see: Wizard of Oz).

G19G20
06-20-2012, 18:41
You have to admit it's amusing to watch Marxists argue in one breath that businessmen were getting rich trading with Hitler and Stalin, then in the next breath argue that businessmen needed war in order to get rich trading with both sides. Even their own beliefs are inconsistent, self-contradictory, and illogical, but they don't see it.

Either your reading comprehension sucks or I wasn't clear enough. My bet's on the former. Both of the things you mention are entwined, not separate. I never said they NEEDED war to get rich. I said they get very rich off of war, wars that they usually have a hand in creating in the first place, then finance and supply (loaning millions to the Nazi's to gas Jews is "trading" in your book?) both sides of conflicts and make a killing. Not a hard concept to understand.

Btw, are you saying NY banks loaning money to the Nazis for their war effort was just "trading" and all in fair play? Can't wait to hear your response.

You don't give to whoops in Hades about the international business on moral grounds. You just envy the rich and use the topic to poke at them.

You don't even know what side of the argument you're on. Yeah, Im soooo jealous that Rockefeller and Bush loaned huge sums of money to the Nazis to buy weaponry to shoot at Americans and gas Jews. That lucky bastard. Can't have anything to do with the atrocities commited with that money.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 18:44
You have to admit it's amusing to watch Marxists argue in one breath that businessmen were getting rich trading with Hitler and Stalin, then in the next breath argue that businessmen needed war in order to get rich trading with both sides. Even their own beliefs are inconsistent, self-contradictory, and illogical, but they don't see it.

No, the REALLY amusing part is when they revile the results of capitalist international trade but then clamor for a world without borders and passports.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 18:49
No, the REALLY amusing part is when they revile the results of capitalist international trade but then clamor for a world without borders and passports.

So go ahead and defend how American banks loaned money to Nazis to use against Americans is just "capitalism" and "trade". I'm not seeing any semblence of an argument in your posts.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 18:52
Either your reading comprehension sucks or I wasn't clear enough. My bet's on the former. Both of the things you mention are entwined, not separate. I never said they NEEDED war to get rich. I said they get very rich off of war, wars that they usually have a hand in creating in the first place, then finance and supply (loaning millions to the Nazi's to gas Jews is "trading" in your book?) both sides of conflicts and make a killing. Not a hard concept to understand.

Either you're a Marxist or you’re a Paulista, or both. My bet is both, and it all fits together. It's those wascally Jewish neocons that are causing all these wars, those wascals.

Wow, what a revelation. People try to make money. In every situation. Trading and bargaining whenever they can. What a brilliant idea you came up with.

Are you suggesting that people in America, early anti-Semitic Paulista types perhaps, loaned money to the Nazis for the purpose of gassing Jews? I'd like to see some proof of that.

Again, I suggest you go back to your history books. You seem to have missed a bunch. I suppose it's obvious that the United States needed that economic powerhouse Vietnam to remain free or else the world financial markets would have collapsed. I just don't see it, though.

I would say it's the Unions that foment and create wars, to increase the influence of Unions across the country. Think of all those fatcat Union bosses getting rich with the factory workers' dues raining in. Wars seem mostly to have been caused by Democrat Presidents, who are in the pockets of the Union bosses. That viewpoint is just as valid.

Again you don't even realize how silly you sound. :dunno:

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 18:55
So go ahead and defend how American banks loaned money to Nazis to use against Americans is just "capitalism" and "trade". I'm not seeing any semblence of an argument in your posts.

So go ahead and admit how you want the power to decide in which countries businesses can conduct their affairs, when we are not in open hostilities with them. I know Paulistas hope for a Ron Paul dictatorship, and here is more evidence. Paul can say where businesses can invest and lend money, case by case. He'll be one busy President. I'd say most countries would be off the list, honestly. Your ignorance is colossal.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 19:07
Either you're a Marxist or you’re a Paulista, or both. My bet is both, and it all fits together. It's those wascally Jewish neocons that are causing all these wars, those wascals.

Never said anything about religions of said bankers. You're the one bringing up Jews in that context. Nice deflection attempt though.


Wow, what a revelation. People try to make money. In every situation. Trading and bargaining whenever they can. What a brilliant idea you came up with.

Obviously I didnt come up with it. Speaking of Google, you should Google the Rothschild family and read up on how THEY devised this money making venture of funding wars on both sides. So you're defending it then?


Are you suggesting that people in America, early anti-Semitic Paulista types perhaps, loaned money to the Nazis for the purpose of gassing Jews? I'd like to see some proof of that.

You're losing your grip buddy and resorting to downright nastiness when your argument sucks. You want links to info on Chase and UB loaning money to the Nazis for their war efforts, which included the gas chambers? Here ya go, recommended reading as it tells all the dirty details: (btw are you a holocaust denier forty?)

http://www.bluecollarpolitics.com/lederman/913chase.html


Again, I suggest you go back to your history books. You seem to have missed a bunch. I suppose it's obvious that the United States needed that economic powerhouse Vietnam to remain free or else the world financial markets would have collapsed. I just don't see it, though.

Not even sure what you're talking about here. Same bankers got rich from Vietnam just like the rest of the wars in recent history.


I would say it's the Unions that foment and create wars, to increase the influence of Unions across the country. Think of all those fatcat Union bosses getting rich with the factory workers' dues raining in. Wars seem mostly to have been caused by Democrat Presidents, who are in the pockets of the Union bosses. That viewpoint is just as valid.

Provide a SINGLE source of information claiming "unions" have anything to do with creating, fomenting, and war profiteering. Just one. Never heard this angle before but Im open to reading about it.


Again you don't even realize how silly you sound. :dunno:

Can't be any sillier than you, defending American banks loaning money and supplies to Nazis that they used to bomb Americans and gas Jews. It's all "capitalism" right?

Im a big fan of capitalism, up until the point that it's used to harm other people out of greed. See: Goldman Sachs and mortgage derivatives for an apt comparison on where something ceases to be capitalism.

countrygun
06-20-2012, 19:08
So go ahead and defend how American banks loaned money to Nazis to use against Americans is just "capitalism" and "trade". I'm not seeing any semblence of an argument in your posts.


And you would have the Government control all international trade?

It is sorta like "free speech" you have to take the good with the bad. But, your assumption or implication that the US fights wars for the purpose of enriching corporations is a ridiculous concept. Marxist have tried that before. It is just more of the "Somebody is richer than me so they must be the source of all evil in the world" drivel

G19G20
06-20-2012, 19:14
So go ahead and admit how you want the power to decide in which countries businesses can conduct their affairs, when we are not in open hostilities with them. I know Paulistas hope for a Ron Paul dictatorship, and here is more evidence. Paul can say where businesses can invest and lend money, case by case. He'll be one busy President. I'd say most countries would be off the list, honestly. Your ignorance is colossal.

That's a mighty big qualifier there in bold since my entire argument is based on the fact that we WERE in open hostilities with the Germans.

For all the talk from folks like you about how we need to intervene in foreign countries affairs, which always reverts back to a some argument about WW2, it's strange that you're now defending the side that says it was ok for US banks to pay Nazis to bomb Americans. Odd.

G-19
06-20-2012, 19:15
And some Congressmen get very rich while championing the poor and middle class. You're catching on G19. The same families think they own politics and pass on political power from generation to generation.

But if you think the reason we go to war is merely to enrich some fatcat businessmen, you're naive and ignorant of history. Maybe if you study a little more you'll finally get it.

Hey, please don't confuse me with the Looney Tunes. :)

countrygun
06-20-2012, 19:22
That's a mighty big qualifier there in bold since my entire argument is based on the fact that we WERE in open hostilities with the Germans.

For all the talk from folks like you about how we need to intervene in foreign countries affairs, which always reverts back to a some argument about WW2, it's strange that you're now defending the side that says it was ok for US banks to pay Nazis to bomb Americans. Odd.


Yes, and during WWI the US government was paying royalties to Mauser of Germany for the patent infringements on the 1903 Springfield rifle, which was being made at a couple of Government arsenals.

Life goes on

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 19:24
Never said anything about religions of said bankers. You're the one bringing up Jews in that context. Nice deflection attempt though.

Bringing up neocons the way you Paulistas do is code. It's well-known. Be a man and admit it.

Obviously I didnt come up with it. Speaking of Google, you should Google the Rothschild family and read up on how THEY devised this money making venture of funding wars on both sides. So you're defending it then?

So you're against Capitalism then? You're against businesses making money? You're against companies earning a profit then?

You're losing your grip buddy and resorting to downright nastiness when your argument sucks. You want links to info on Chase and UB loaning money to the Nazis for their war efforts, which included the gas chambers? Here ya go, recommended reading as it tells all the dirty details: (btw are you a holocaust denier forty?)

No, I am not Ron Paul's friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I don't deny the holocaust. It displayed pure evil, as did the murders of millions of Soviet subjects under Stalin and millions of Chinese under Mao. Do you deny those other murders? Do you think some people need protection around the world, or are they all to fend for themselves?

Thanks for the link to bluecollarpolitics website, an objective source if ever there was one. :upeyes:

Not even sure what you're talking about here. Same bankers got rich from Vietnam just like the rest of the wars in recent history.

If you are too dense to see it, let me spell it out for you. Read it slowly. People make money during wars. People make money in peacetime. Some people get rich during wartime. Some people get rich during peacetime. To believe that wars are created artificially in order for some people to get rich at the expense of others is a Marxist philosophy. Embrace it.

Provide a SINGLE source of information claiming "unions" have anything to do with creating, fomenting, and war profiteering. Just one. Never heard this angle before but Im open to reading about it.

Follow the money. That's all you need to do. Follow the money.

Can't be any sillier than you, defending American banks loaning money and supplies to Nazis that they used to bomb Americans and gas Jews. It's all "capitalism" right?

Keep fighting for a Ron Paul dictatorship while telling everybody you're a libertarian. It's funny. Keep it up.

Im a big fan of capitalism, up until the point that it's used to harm other people out of greed. See: Goldman Sachs and mortgage derivatives for an apt comparison on where something ceases to be capitalism.

I suggest you do a little more research into why banks were forced into making loans to high risk borrowers, and how they took steps to mitigate the risks. That's called government interference in the free market.

Rules must be followed. Laws must be followed. Lawbreakers go to jail (or serve in Congress).

Do you admit the Ron Paul uses Capitalism to reward his voters by shoveling earmark pork money to them in exchange for votes? Capitalism has worked for Paul for years now. He's not poor, and he uses the greed of his constituents to buy their votes. See: unconstitutional earmark spending. Of course, since it's not his money, Paul is not really exploiting Capitalism, just the greed of his constituents.

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 19:41
How many people die over your use of ketchup? Apples and oranges comparison. My point is that Im firmly convinced that most wars, particularly wars the US gets involved in, are started first for financial reasons, second for idealogical reasons, third for strategic goals. Often financial and strategic are one and the same, particularly for the small elite group that pulls the strings behind the scenes (see: Wizard of Oz).

Billions of tomatoes die due to America's love of Ketchup. The loss of life, and potential life (seeds) is tremendous.

And darn it all to heck, I have more sympathy for those poor seeds that never got to grow up to be tomato plants, than I do any of my enemies. Karma wise? There are more people walking around because of me, than people that are dead because of me. I've never killed anyone by accident. My Karma account is very far into the green. I sleep VERY well.

You haven't given any of us much of a reason to give anything you say about foreign affairs or history much credence. This is another example.

Google much, contract out for a cause and effect detector, and understand that WWII was about power. Money was involved, and some that invested didn't see it until it was evident by all.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 19:45
And since you're rewriting history to support your Paulista-Marxist world view, here are a few facts:

Most of the trading activities of American companies with IG Farben (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2-background.htm) took place long before Hitler came to power. In the 1920s Hitler was just one of a gaggle of possible future leaders of Germany, and to use hindsight to criticize companies for trading with Germany when it was in the grip of a major recession is ludicrous.

Other activities took place after Hitler came to power but before he went to war with Poland in 1939, or declared war on the United States in 1941. Now, I'd imagine that Roosevelt would not have allowed American companies to continue actively trading with Nazi Germany in 1942-1945, and if you have proof that they did, I'd like to read it. I'd like to read it from an objective source, not a leftwing Marxist anti-Capitalist site, by the way. I can't find any, but I'm not going to waste more time on it.

G19G20
06-20-2012, 19:45
Bringing up neocons the way you Paulistas do is code. It's well-known. Be a man and admit it.

You must be projecting since you seem to think there's a connection between Jews, bankers, and war profiteering. I don't recall even using the word neocon in this thread.


So you're against Capitalism then? You're against businesses making money? You're against companies earning a profit then?

You confuse capitalism with corporatism. What Im speaking of is corporatism.


No, I am not Ron Paul's friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I don't deny the holocaust. It displayed pure evil, as did the murders of millions of Soviet subjects under Stalin and millions of Chinese under Mao. Do you deny those other murders? Do you think some people need protection around the world, or are they all to fend for themselves?

Great! You just don't mind American banks financing said evil. Also, I don't recall America being sent to rescue the Chinese or Soviets. Maybe it's because the bankers couldn't finance that side too?


Thanks for the link to bluecollarpolitics website, an objective source if ever there was one. :upeyes:

It's an overview. You like to tell people to Google so much that Im sure you know how to do it too, if you wish to verify any of the contents for yourself.


If you are too dense to see it, let me spell it out for you. Read it slowly. People make money during wars. People make money in peacetime. Some people get rich during wartime. Some people get rich during peacetime. To believe that wars are created artificially in order for some people to get rich at the expense of others is a Marxist philosophy. Embrace it.

Sure, people make money in wars. Bankers have the innate ability to position themselves to make money on all sides, war or peacetime, even when they're making money at the expense of dead next door neighbors. Keep supporting those troops forty! Then we get to bail them out when they gamble incorrectly. Yeah that'll teach em.


Follow the money. That's all you need to do. Follow the money.

So you have no source and your claim is completely unfounded.


Im not even going to bother with the rest of your post. This is stupid to debate this topic with you. You're now just making stuff up and twisting yourself into knots trying to defend bad policy since you're now invested in it by your own statements. Next.

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 19:50
Just checking, has Ron endorsed mitt yet, or is he still waiting for the convention?

Also, have you signed your affidavit yet?

G19G20
06-20-2012, 19:54
Ron will not endorse Mitt. Won't happen, I guarantee it. Take that to the bank.

Was that what that was? There was some letter I got from the state GOP but I didn't read it. It was handy for cleaning up dog poop though.

fortyofforty
06-20-2012, 19:55
You must be projecting since you seem to think there's a connection between Jews, bankers, and war profiteering. I don't recall even using the word neocon in this thread.

Paulistas claim the neocons got us involved in the Iraq war. They blame neocons for American support for Israel. If you've never once used the term neocon here on GT I apologize.

You confuse capitalism with corporatism. What Im speaking of is corporatism.

Sounds like Marxist parsing. Nice deflection.

Great! You just don't mind American banks financing said evil. Also, I don't recall America being sent to rescue the Chinese or Soviets. Maybe it's because the bankers couldn't finance that side too?

Which American banks financed Germany between 1942 and 1945? That's when we were at war with Germany.

It's an overview. You like to tell people to Google so much that Im sure you know how to do it too, if you wish to verify any of the contents for yourself.

I rarely use the term "Google". I don't like Google myself.

Sure, people make money in wars. Bankers have the innate ability to position themselves to make money on all sides, war or peacetime. Then we get to bail them out when they gamble incorrectly. Yeah that'll teach em.

We don't "get to" bail anyone out. Politicians decide to bail them out. No public money should be used to bail out any private company, not a bank and not a car company. Can you agree on that?

So you have no source and your claim is completely unfounded.

My idea about the Unions is as valid as your Marxist claim, backed by Marxist websites, that bankers cause most wars.

Im not even going to bother with the rest of your post. This is stupid to debate this topic with you. You're now just making stuff up and twisting yourself into knots trying to defend bad policy since you're now invested in it by your own statements. Next.

Keep defending Ron Paul by attacking American corporations. That's going to get you far. I'd submit that American chemical companies employ far more people than you do. And if they traded with IG Farben in the 1920s, it was a shame they didn't anticipate Hitler coming to power. Now, in Iraq, we had a dictator that had used poison gas to kill thousands of people and was actively hostile to the United States. I suppose we were right then to go into Iraq and remove that little Hitler, by your logic. Iraq in 2003 was like Germany in the 1920s or 1930s, and we acted to stop things from getting worse. Glad you see the reasoning behind the war in Iraq. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 19:58
Ron will not endorse Mitt. Won't happen, I guarantee it. Take that to the bank.

Was that what that was? There was some letter I got from the state GOP but I didn't read it. It was handy for cleaning up dog poop though.

Well, time will tell about Ron, he was given the opportunity to state he would never endorse romney, but just said there was no way he was ready to do that right now. I'll bookmark this post, so I can show it to you when he endorses Romney. We'll all have a good laugh about it.

So you got the letter, and didn't open it. Sounds like you are no longer a delegate. Or won't be soon. Idealism meets reality, huh?

G19G20
06-20-2012, 20:00
Naaa you just have no sense of humor Cav.

(But seriously, no way will Ron endorse Romney. Go ahead and save it but don't forget to bump it up when it doesn't happen.)

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 20:05
Naaa you just have no sense of humor Cav.

(But seriously, no way will Ron endorse Romney. Go ahead and save it but don't forget to bump it up when it doesn't happen.)

It's already happened, we are just waiting for the announcement.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9cyFVwAYnWg/T1nbD0ft6zI/AAAAAAAABPc/23e6zsR668A/s1600/Mitt%2BRomney%2Band%2BRon%2BPaul.jpg&sa=X&ei=toDiT72mDtOl2AWMv_juCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG_WJR3FHdtWih-K5MLcdGfCoTnyg

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mitt+Romney+Ron+Paul+Republican+Presidential+4w_fVsmphIkl.jpg&sa=X&ei=DYHiT9zLILG_2QWa3uXXCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHnblnIwGI-ZYhNPFGrlvegebSr3A

RC-RAMIE
06-20-2012, 21:22
It's already happened, we are just waiting for the announcement.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9cyFVwAYnWg/T1nbD0ft6zI/AAAAAAAABPc/23e6zsR668A/s1600/Mitt%2BRomney%2Band%2BRon%2BPaul.jpg&sa=X&ei=toDiT72mDtOl2AWMv_juCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG_WJR3FHdtWih-K5MLcdGfCoTnyg

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mitt+Romney+Ron+Paul+Republican+Presidential+4w_fVsmphIkl.jpg&sa=X&ei=DYHiT9zLILG_2QWa3uXXCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHnblnIwGI-ZYhNPFGrlvegebSr3A

Making up your facts again Doc?


....

kirgi08
06-20-2012, 22:58
It's called foreshadowing.'08.