Is Paul Racist? You Be the Judge

[Annie]

Hemp isn't in use because of that little provision of illegality of the marijuana plant.

It would be extremely cost efficient. It's grown naturally. It can replace fossil fuels, petrochemicals, synthetic textiles, cotton, the need to cut down trees to make paper, and much more.

It's one of the oldest industries on the planet.

Check this site out for starters:

http://www.votehemp.com/

Turn it into ethynol, then plead your case. Hmmm, might change the dynamics, as corn/soybeans is causing unacceptable costs for food. Pull back to borders, make hemp your cause and make a killing.

 

[Paulie]

We have YET to bomb and invade a country and take their oil, so that comment is nonapplicable.

No one said TAKE. We merely prevented Iraq from initiating an oil bourse.

What plenty of ways are you suggesting there are to move away from oil dependency? I have yet to see a viable one.

Let's start with nuclear, and hemp, and go from there.

 

[Gunny]

There's no evidence of this, and by logic, waging wars to destroy SECULAR leaders in the middle east is not exactly good business for oil. But this is popular with the left as an "explanation" because it lays blame at the feet of "capitalism." Capitalism, however, seeks to maximize profit, not blood loss. A capitalist would make deals with whoever he could to secure oil access. If the "it's about oil" theory were correct, we'd have troops in Venezuela right now, where Hugo Chavez has NATIONALIZED the industry, for God's sake! But we don't. Why not? Or, hey, how about MEXICO? No, the middle east is about Israel.

You misread what I posted. We DO have an interest in who controls the oil. You response is not to that.

 

[Gunny]

Ron Paul is not a racist.

Okay. Explain the statements that are direct quotes from Paul's mouth in the original post.

 

[Paulie]

You misread what I posted. We DO have an interest in who controls the oil. You response is not to that.

If you admit that though, and you also realize that there are other OPEC nations that would certainly entertain the idea of switching to a different currency for trade, namely Iran, then why do you buy into the terrorism card, and all the other fear mongering?

It's not like we're going to publicly admit "We can't let this nation sell their own oil in a different currency, we must invade and change regimes".

 

[Gunny]

TRANSLATION (from double think to English)

I AM AWARE THIS SOURCE IS NOT CREDIBLE AND BIASED BUT IT SLANDERS RON PAUL WHO THOSE TINFOIL GUYS SUPPORT SO I WILL PROPAGATE IT ANYWAYS

And if I was using the source as a reference you might have an argument. Since I commented only on a quote from Ron Paul that is contained within the blog, you don't have one at all.

Served. Again. Shut up and go away retard.

 

[Gunny]

No one said TAKE. We merely prevented Iraq from initiating an oil bourse.



Let's start with nuclear, and hemp, and go from there.

Neither choice is viable.

Oil was a secondary consideration to invading Iraq. I know there are those of you who believe otherwise, but you're just wrong. Invading Iraq was about Saddam Hussein.

 

[Gunny]

If you admit that though, and you also realize that there are other OPEC nations that would certainly entertain the idea of switching to a different currency for trade, namely Iran, then why do you buy into the terrorism card, and all the other fear mongering?

It's not like we're going to publicly admit "We can't let this nation sell their own oil in a different currency, we must invade and change regimes".

No. You take a simple statement and start running for the wrong goalposts with it.

Having an interest in who controls the oil is simply smart since we are dependent on it. Making arguments otherwise is unrealistic.

That statement also does NOT say we invaded Iraq to control the oil. There's a lot of reading into shit going on here.

We can support certain regimes and not others without lifting a finger. An interest in who controls the oil is not mutually inclusive with invasion and regime change.

 

[eots]

And if I was using the source as a reference you might have an argument. Since I commented only on a quote from Ron Paul that is contained within the bog, you don't have one at all.

Served. Again. Shut up and go away retard.

a quote from Ron Paul ? their was no quote from Ron Paul there was a quote from a news letter associated with Ron Paul it was not his writings so why don't you shut up retard and get your facts straight

 

[Dirt McGirt]

a quote from Ron Paul ? their was no quote from Ron Paul there was a quote from a news letter associated with Ron Paul it was not his writings so why don't you shut up retard and get your facts straight

HAHA, look at Eots the Ronbot apologist spin machine. Ron Paul alleges that Bush never takes accountability for the screw ups in the government, yet Ron Paul can't even take credit for his own newsletter. This is a fucking newsletter we're talking about, not some big shit like Ron Paul the Magazine. It's not like this was a full fledged operation with a team of editors and writers.

Seriously, how hard is it to read a couple of pages in a leaflet? If Ron Paul can't even proofread his own rinky dink bullshit, how can anyone trust him to read something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?

 

[eots]

HAHA, look at Eots the Ronbot apologist spin machine. Ron Paul alleges that Bush never takes accountability for the screw ups in the government, yet Ron Paul can't even take credit for his own newsletter. This is a fucking newsletter we're talking about, not some big shit like Ron Paul the Magazine. It's not like this was a full fledged operation with a team of editors and writers.

Seriously, how hard is it to read a couple of pages in a leaflet? If Ron Paul can't even proofread his own rinky dink bullshit, how can anyone trust him to read something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?

HE HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILTY FOR IT HE DID NOT WRITE IT... BUT SHOULD OF BEEN AWARE OF IT

 

[Paulie]

If Ron Paul can't even proofread his own rinky dink bullshit, how can anyone trust him to read something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?

Apparently it was the administration who couldn't be trusted, because just in case you need your memory refreshed, Bin Laden struck in the US.

And after reading that memo, what did they do? They devoted even LESS resources to keeping it from happening.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Might want to check that one out. Why would the FBI order the best expert they had on Al-Qaeda to back off?

And remember Rice? (paraphrased) "I don't think anybody could have envisioned them using hijacked airliners as missiles".

No, huh? I'm sure you're aware of the memo from 1999 which I'm quite sure anyone within the national security apparatus in the administration had read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml

"This information was out there, certainly to those who study the in-depth subject of terrorism and al-Qaeda," said Robert L. Worden, the agency's chief.

"We knew it was an insightful report," he said. "Then after Sept. 11 we said, 'My gosh, that was in there.'"

"Oh my gosh! Like, no way!"

So don't fucking talk about who can't be TRUSTED, due to a lack of reading.

 

[AllieBaba]

We can't produce enough hemp to replace fossil fuels. And the whole business of turning hemp or any other roughage into energy consumes more energy than it produces.

The Prius is a car that's widely in use, and looks like a normal car. I have no idea why they make them ugly. I thought Ford Escorts and Pintos were the ugliest cars in the world, but everybody bought them.

 

[Paulie]

We can't produce enough hemp to replace fossil fuels.

Nonsense. Fossil fuels are finite and will eventually be gone, hemp can be produced forever as long as there is water and sunshine.

And the whole business of turning hemp or any other roughage into energy consumes more energy than it produces.

That SOUNDS good, but just saying it doesn't make it so. My argument for hemp doesn't begin and end with energy anyway. It can completely replace petrochemicals, synthetic textile, deforestation for paper...just for a few really important examples.

I wonder how that would make the corporations responsible for all those things feel, to be put out of business.

The Prius is a car that's widely in use, and looks like a normal car. I have no idea why they make them ugly. I thought Ford Escorts and Pintos were the ugliest cars in the world, but everybody bought them.

Widely? I'm an avid car fan myself, so I'm always car watching. We took an 1100 mile road trip, both ways, for x-mas to see family, and I never saw one Prius.

I barely even saw ANY alternative energy vehicles.

Everybody bought Pintos and Escorts because they were cheap, and great on gas in a time, much like today, where gas was expensive.

Same reason there's so many Neons, and Civics on the road.

I'm not just saying it's the fault of the auto-makers. Obviously, if people REALLY cared enough about the problem, they'd buy the damn vehicles REGARDLESS of what they looked like.

I'd imagine if all the sudden the Prius and the Echo (maybe the ugliest car I've ever seen) all the sudden became popular, people would buy them for that reason alone.

Many people are aware of Cameron Diaz's stance, and that she drives a Prius, but it sure as hell hasn't gone viral.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well we have I don't know how many of them in our government fleet, including one here locally which is the backside of nowhere, and I see them all over the place when I'm out. I live in a town of 460 and there's another one here.

I guess you're not looking in the right places. Or maybe you just don't recognize them.

And what I said about hemp is true, I've written about biofuels and researched them. People have been saying oil is finite since the first petroleum engine was built, and it doesn't mean a thing except people don't know what they're talking about. Our supply was originally supposed to run out in the 20s.