Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll; greeted by cascading boos


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,853 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 21 February 2010 - 02:58 PM

In 1783, when it took a month or so to travel from the US to Europe, military isolationism made sense. We could afford to ignore what was going on in europe. Although even then, the Barbary pirates proved we needed to work with other nations and defend ourselves overseas. But these days, when ballistic missiles can travel from one side of the earth to the other in less time than it takes for dominos to deliver a pizza, its unrealistic and dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we went in to Iraq under false pretenses. Of course, thats hardly the only war we went into under false pretenses. Both the mexican and spanish american wars were committed to under false pretenses and this was well before any of those entangling European alliances. Its the quality and competence of our leadership that matters, not NATO or our alliances. Those alliances are important, because they give us a mechanism to act in concert with other nations against potential future threats. But the choice on whether or not to go war still comes down to the competence of our leadership. We didn't go into Iraq because of NATO or the UN. In fact, those entities tried to restrain us. But Bush II was incompetent and unqualified to be president of the US, and made bad choices all by himself. As bad as Bush II was, I trust Ron Paul even less to be able to make the tough decisions.


I don't have time to continue this debate, because I have to go meet with the rest of the trilats and plan the next black helicopter op, but feel free to carry on.


our "presidents" really have nothing to do with all of this. they're more or less the PR man for the powers that be. Paul is one of the only politicians to be trusted in this country. Every president we've had since Kennedy has been bought and paid for, and only serve the interests of their masters - this goes for most of congress as well, and its career politicians. tony blair and the UN were pro us going into iraq. the middle east is the perfect arena for a never ending false war, and our quest to spread "democracy" around world.

our leadership knows exactly what they're doing. and no, our leadership is not obama or dubya.

#17 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 03:41 PM

our "presidents" really have nothing to do with all of this. they're more or less the PR man for the powers that be. Paul is one of the only politicians to be trusted in this country. Every president we've had since Kennedy has been bought and paid for, and only serve the interests of their masters - this goes for most of congress as well, and its career politicians. tony blair and the UN were pro us going into iraq. the middle east is the perfect arena for a never ending false war, and our quest to spread "democracy" around world.

our leadership knows exactly what they're doing. and no, our leadership is not obama or dubya.


Yep.

But don't we have to be in the middle east because they hate our freedom? Haha

#18 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 03:44 PM

fixed


Provide one valid argument about how Ron Paul is an establishment POS.

This should be entertaining.

#19 StepandFetch

StepandFetch

    ............chicken wire?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 05:03 PM

for those who say Paul is not "electable"... (I just have to laugh at these MSM spoon fed words) He is perfectly electable until a majority of the population is told that he isn't electable... it isn't any more complicated than that,

Ron Paul is not an isolationist (really, we are still stuck at this bit of rhetoric?) He is a non-interventionist and actually believes in many of the principles of just-war.... this isolationist crap is all coming from one source and some are bluntly stupid enough to believe it.

Luckily Paul is becoming much louder, angrier, and more emphatic.. he is going to need that attitude as the MSM has already started turning their backs and discrediting him ( they weren't doing this a couple of months ago or right after the 2008 election....)

#20 Guest_CatofWar_*

Guest_CatofWar_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 07:36 PM

He is not an isolationist. He believes in non intervention. There is a difference. Also, Rand is like his father, but a bit more conservative to me anyways.

#21 Guest_CatofWar_*

Guest_CatofWar_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 07:40 PM

In 1783, when it took a month or so to travel from the US to Europe, military isolationism made sense. We could afford to ignore what was going on in europe. Although even then, the Barbary pirates proved we needed to work with other nations and defend ourselves overseas. But these days, when ballistic missiles can travel from one side of the earth to the other in less time than it takes for dominos to deliver a pizza, its unrealistic and dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we went in to Iraq under false pretenses. Of course, thats hardly the only war we went into under false pretenses. Both the mexican and spanish american wars were committed to under false pretenses and this was well before any of those entangling European alliances. Its the quality and competence of our leadership that matters, not NATO or our alliances. Those alliances are important, because they give us a mechanism to act in concert with other nations against potential future threats. But the choice on whether or not to go war still comes down to the competence of our leadership. We didn't go into Iraq because of NATO or the UN. In fact, those entities tried to restrain us. But Bush II was incompetent and unqualified to be president of the US, and made bad choices all by himself. As bad as Bush II was, I trust Ron Paul even less to be able to make the tough decisions.


I don't have time to continue this debate, because I have to go meet with the rest of the trilats and plan the next black helicopter op, but feel free to carry on.


Keep spreading the empire across the globe. It worked for Rome.

#22 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:11 PM

...black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such...


haha

#23 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,665 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:48 PM

that was totally ghost written like every other questionable thing he's ever said!

#24 Starscream

Starscream

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts
  • LocationLaurinburg, NC

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:54 PM

Keep spreading the empire across the globe. It worked for Rome.


Rome spread itself too thin, as did the Brittish Empire. We will eventually do the same, as will the next superpower after us.

#25 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:59 PM

haha



Ron Paul never said any of these statements. They were instead ghostwritten by someone in his campaign, who he would go on to fire because of it. Ron Paul later told Texas Monthly magazine in 2001, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” (A direct link to words contained in the Texas Monthly article is unavailable online without a subscription, but they are cited on USA Today’s political blog.) At the time though, he was advised not to go into that level of detail, as it would be too confusing, and he felt morally responsible for the words because they came from his campaign, regardless of whether he actually wrote them, so instead he flatly denied the statements as untrue. Which technically, they were.


http://slander.revol....st/racist.html

Ron Paul wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders, which would obviously help black america more than anything Obama has said, let alone done.

#26 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:01 PM

Rome spread itself too thin, as did the Brittish Empire. We will eventually do the same, as will the next superpower after us.


Only if we keep the notion that we are an empire. That is completely antithetical to our founders' intentions.

#27 Starscream

Starscream

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts
  • LocationLaurinburg, NC

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:14 PM

Only if we keep the notion that we are an empire. That is completely antithetical to our founders' intentions.


We claim that we are not, yet our actions post-WWII show otherwise.

#28 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:14 PM


Ron Paul never said any of these statements. They were instead ghostwritten by someone in his campaign, who he would go on to fire because of it. Ron Paul later told Texas Monthly magazine in 2001, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” (A direct link to words contained in the Texas Monthly article is unavailable online without a subscription, but they are cited on USA Today’s political blog.) At the time though, he was advised not to go into that level of detail, as it would be too confusing, and he felt morally responsible for the words because they came from his campaign, regardless of whether he actually wrote them, so instead he flatly denied the statements as untrue. Which technically, they were.


http://slander.revol....st/racist.html

Ron Paul wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders, which would obviously help black america more than anything Obama has said, let alone done.


Duh! Didn't you see! rodeo already pointed this out! (although it was sarcasm, because obviously Mr. Paul wouldn't want folks to think he'd said such things...)

...and lol at you're assumption that "pardons for all non-violent drug offenders would help black america"... I'm sure they appreciate you speaking for them, as you so eloquently slice our country in divisions based on skin color...

#29 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:17 PM

"by someone in his campaign, whom he would go on to fire because of it"

I need specifics... I might lean towards giving that statement some credit...

I know people that dress like ghosts and tend to hang out with the conservative crowd... I wonder if they are also writers for campaigns....

#30 Guest_CatofWar_*

Guest_CatofWar_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:18 PM

Duh! Didn't you see! rodeo already pointed this out! (although it was sarcasm, because obviously Mr. Paul wouldn't want folks to think he'd said such things...)

...and lol at you're assumption that "pardons for all non-violent drug offenders would help black america"... I'm sure they appreciate you speaking for them, as you so eloquently slice our country in divisions based on skin color...


You brought up the bogus race quote. Get off your high horse.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com