Ron Paul Cant Win

[countitjoy5]

Regardless of whether Ron Paul wins or loses, his ideas will be burnt upon the collective forebrain of America -- eventually time will run out on the American global petrodollar system, the War Machine and the Federal Reserve... not to mention the socialist welfare state that is supported by it.

Then Ron Paul's ideas ideas won't seem so nutty; when the dollar collapse arrives then they will be begging for someone who can offer a real solution. But by then it may be too late - the Red Army will be knocking at your door.

 

[Xchel]

Ron Paul loses sane Republican voters when he rants on about making drugs legal, pulling back the military to inside our borders and hints at 9-11 is our fault.

He is a nutjob outside his anti-Federalist and economic views. He is pretty much a liberal outside his small govt views.

I laughed my ass off when he said troops spending money here instead of overseas would help our economy, as if the troops overseas didn't help our economy by protecting free trade, etc.

his policy on drugs is the only one I happen to agree with.

Thats not surprising, most people who use drugs are not very smart.

Dont get upset, you bring it on yourself.

Um I don't and never have used drugs..thinking that others should have the right to do with their body what they want does not mean that I choose to do the same.

 

[Unkotare]

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire]

There is no "empire" to maintain. Stop repeating the same misrepresentation over and over.

How the hell would you represent a 1.3 trillion dollar a year budget to maintain 900 military bases in 135 different country's? That doesnt even count the 9 different branches of government that protect empire here at home.

Dont be scared to answer, youve already got egg on your face so whats a bit more?]

Pull your head out your ass, buy a dictionary, and ask a Jr High School student to teach you about the structure of our government.

 

[Unkotare]

Ron Paul loses sane Republican voters when he rants on about making drugs legal, pulling back the military to inside our borders and hints at 9-11 is our fault.

He is a nutjob outside his anti-Federalist and economic views. He is pretty much a liberal outside his small govt views.

I laughed my ass off when he said troops spending money here instead of overseas would help our economy, as if the troops overseas didn't help our economy by protecting free trade, etc.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!! So, now our soldiers are protecting free trade. .

Not just now. They've been doing it for a long, long time.

 

[eots]

And here we have another prime example of those who are Paul's Achilles heel, the paranoid twoofer idiots.

so you take issue with this news report...what part ?

I don't watch your BS videos........You twoofers, and your paranoid BS, has been thoroughly bebunked, over and over again.

And yes, YOU are one of Ron Paul's major problems. Along with the Stormfront types, and the rest of the loons that flock to his nutty ass.

its been bebunked has it...it is a fox news piece with interviews with FBI and government officials you loon

 

[Liberty]

Ron Paul is unelectable because he is a flaming whackjob.

Why ?

The two major reasons that spring to mind are:

(1) Ron Paul's "gold standard fantasy" is bizarre because one has to be a retarded nincompoop not to realize that there isn't enough gold to back up the gold standard.

(2) Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of unrealistic isolationism reduces itself to an appeasement of any inimical interests to America from foreign countries. Mitt Romney's ( and probably all the other viable Republican nominees) declared policy of preventing anyone attacking Israel, our only true ally in the Mid East, by basically stating: "You mess with Israel, you mess with the USA" is exactly opposite that of the political idiot Ron Paul's whose policy results in throwing Israel under the bus.

In short, Ron Paul's isolationism would invite more unrest in the world than less.

1. That's the point. It reduces inflation.
2. Where has Ron Paul ever said he supports isolationism? Just because he is against one extreme does not mean you can automatically conclude he is for the other.

By questioning Ron Paul's support for extreme Isolationism you are indicating to me that you are a hopeless Ron Paul follower beyond my interest in what you have to comment.

Where has he ever said to be isolationist? WHERE? You are making shit up. Just because he doesn't support one extreme doesn't mean you can conclude he supports the other. That's just fucking stupid of you.

 

[Xchel]

1. That's the point. It reduces inflation.
2. Where has Ron Paul ever said he supports isolationism? Just because he is against one extreme does not mean you can automatically conclude he is for the other.

By questioning Ron Paul's support for extreme Isolationism you are indicating to me that you are a hopeless Ron Paul follower beyond my interest in what you have to comment.

Where has he ever said to be isolationist? WHERE? You are making shit up. Just because he doesn't support one extreme doesn't mean you can conclude he supports the other. That's just fucking stupid of you.

when he is against treaties, foreign aid and any kind of military assistance even peace keeping and training missions then he is yes an isolationist.

 

[WatertheTree]

his policy on drugs is the only one I happen to agree with.

Thats not surprising, most people who use drugs are not very smart.

Dont get upset, you bring it on yourself.

Um I don't and never have used drugs..thinking that others should have the right to do with their body what they want does not mean that I choose to do the same.

Yea, and Ron Paul supports violent criminals owning guns. Dumb fucking lying bitch.

 

[WatertheTree]

By questioning Ron Paul's support for extreme Isolationism you are indicating to me that you are a hopeless Ron Paul follower beyond my interest in what you have to comment.

Where has he ever said to be isolationist? WHERE? You are making shit up. Just because he doesn't support one extreme doesn't mean you can conclude he supports the other. That's just fucking stupid of you.

when he is against treaties, foreign aid and any kind of military assistance even peace keeping and training missions then he is yes an isolationist.

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.

I live in Honduras that is where I get my facts. You think that his ALBA agreements are off the wall theories? Where in the hell have you been? This is why fools should not get involved in politics....especially when they are clueless as to why we do not want to pull out our bases from everywhere.

but since you continue to have your head in the sand....

Chavez wants military alliance against US - Geopolitical Monitor

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Hugo Chavez suggests invading Honduras after coup

perhaps you are the only person who did not know about the unrest that happened on June 29, 2009 and that is why you are unqualified to determine what is needed and Ron Paul is even more disqualified than you are.

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

ANSWER THE FUCKIN QUESTION

If you dont have the balls to back up what you have to say then shut your fuckin pie hole.

 

[WatertheTree]

ron paul is unelectable because he is a flaming whackjob.

Why ?

The two major reasons that spring to mind are:

(1) ron paul's "gold standard fantasy" is bizarre because one has to be a retarded nincompoop not to realize that there isn't enough gold to back up the gold standard.

(2) ron paul's foreign policy of unrealistic isolationism reduces itself to an appeasement of any inimical interests to america from foreign countries. Mitt romney's ( and probably all the other viable republican nominees) declared policy of preventing anyone attacking israel, our only true ally in the mid east, by basically stating: "you mess with israel, you mess with the usa" is exactly opposite that of the political idiot ron paul's whose policy results in throwing israel under the bus.

In short, ron paul's isolationism would invite more unrest in the world than less.

1. That's the point. It reduces inflation.
2. Where has ron paul ever said he supports isolationism? Just because he is against one extreme does not mean you can automatically conclude he is for the other.

by questioning ron paul's support for extreme isolationism you are indicating to me that you are a hopeless ron paul follower beyond my interest in what you have to comment.

hopeless ron paul supporter = patriot of freedom

 

[Liberty]

By questioning Ron Paul's support for extreme Isolationism you are indicating to me that you are a hopeless Ron Paul follower beyond my interest in what you have to comment.

Where has he ever said to be isolationist? WHERE? You are making shit up. Just because he doesn't support one extreme doesn't mean you can conclude he supports the other. That's just fucking stupid of you.

when he is against treaties, foreign aid and any kind of military assistance even peace keeping and training missions then he is yes an isolationist.

that's not what isolationism is, dumbass. And again, please quote where Paul says he is for isolationism. Everything I have heard from his mouth when it comes to foreign policy is open free trade is good, and no entangling alliances that burn up our treasury. Thats not isolationism, thats the constitution. What gives the USA the authority to manipulate and interfere with the rights of other sovereign countries that pose no threat to us and have not attacked us?

 

[Dragon]

Empire | Define Empire at Dictionary.com

"Empire (n) 1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire."

(Emphasis added.) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by the U.S. government via its military clearly meets the definition. Note that an empire does not require an emperor; the U.S. is not the first republic in history to have an empire. Most of the Roman empire was conquered during the Republic, Athens conquered an empire while under Athenian democracy, Carthage was a republic, the French Empire persisted through several French Republics, etc.

Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An imperial political structure is established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor’s goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion. Territorial empires (e.g. the Mongol Empire, the Median Empire) tended to be contiguous areas. The term on occasion has been applied to maritime empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian and British Empires) with looser structures and more scattered territories."

The U.S. has a very small territorial empire and a much larger hegemonic empire.

 

[Unkotare]

(Emphasis added.) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by the U.S. government via its military clearly meets the definition..

You didn't add emphasis, you added bullshit. The US doesn't "rule over" any of the sovereign nations where we have bases. YOU ARE WRONG, drama queen. Let it go.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Lots of examples of Ron Paul Whackjobbery here.
Someone brings up an issue they disagree with Paul on. RP supporters call them brain dead, lying bitch, @sshole etc...
I brought up how strategies the Dems would use against him - while making it clear it doesn't matter whether I agree with his positions.
Bam! The whackjobs attack.
So when Ron Paul isn't his own problem, his supporters are. Do I want a guy who is supported by that kind of hostile extremism? Yeah right. He's about as appealing as Michele Bachmann.

 

[Kuros]

Interesting form of refutation being used here: refutation by supporter.

Apparently, the statusquotidians can't attack Ron Paul on the issues, so they're going to go after his personality . . . or rather, his supporters' personalities. Its still an ad hominem attack: Ron's policies are wrong because of his bad character. But it is even more indirect and removed. Ron Paul is a nice guy, but his policies are wrong because of the bad character displayed by those who agree with his ideas.

Its all very insipid.

 

[WatertheTree]

Interesting form of refutation being used here: refutation by supporter.

Apparently, the statusquotidians can't attack Ron Paul on the issues, so they're going to go after his personality . . . or rather, his supporters' personalities. Its still an ad hominem attack: Ron's policies are wrong because of his bad character. But it is even more indirect and removed. Ron Paul is a nice guy, but his policies are wrong because of the bad character displayed by those who agree with his ideas.

Its all very insipid.

Yea, and most of them cannot back up anything they say here. In all the pages of this thread I have only found two posts with legitiment reasons that Ron Paul cannot be elected. One is difference of ideology with regards to global empire. Neocons love the empire and the huge defense and all the wars, but they got nothing to say when its time to pay the bill.

The other is that Ron Paul isnt superficial and shallow enough to win. He doesnt look good enough, he is to old. He doesnt articulate as well as somone with a teleprompter, he doesnt wear 1000 dollar suits etc.

This thread proves that the only people who think Ron Paul cant win are the neocons. You know, the 'republican conservatives' who are anything but, and can only parrot what media tells them.

On a side note, I must apologise for my rudeness directed towards certian dumbshits in this thread. I am sorry that I lost my temper after the 6 or 7th time of responding to your idiotic posts. What can really be said though, when most posts from these people are in direct opposition to what makes America great?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Interesting form of refutation being used here: refutation by supporter.

Apparently, the statusquotidians can't attack Ron Paul on the issues, so they're going to go after his personality . . . or rather, his supporters' personalities. Its still an ad hominem attack: Ron's policies are wrong because of his bad character. But it is even more indirect and removed. Ron Paul is a nice guy, but his policies are wrong because of the bad character displayed by those who agree with his ideas.

Its all very insipid.

You came in late so I'll assume you didn't read the posts that inspired this.
Poster A said they found Pauls stance X extreme. The RP supporter addressed this with such intellectual phrases as brain dead bitch die balls etc...
I received similar responses for not commenting on his stances at all, but rather how the Dems would use them.
This went on for a while before some of us noticed a pattern toward anyone who doesn't totally worship the guy and here we are...

 

[Xchel]

Where has he ever said to be isolationist? WHERE? You are making shit up. Just because he doesn't support one extreme doesn't mean you can conclude he supports the other. That's just fucking stupid of you.

when he is against treaties, foreign aid and any kind of military assistance even peace keeping and training missions then he is yes an isolationist.

that's not what isolationism is, dumbass. And again, please quote where Paul says he is for isolationism. Everything I have heard from his mouth when it comes to foreign policy is open free trade is good, and no entangling alliances that burn up our treasury. Thats not isolationism, thats the constitution. What gives the USA the authority to manipulate and interfere with the rights of other sovereign countries that pose no threat to us and have not attacked us?

isolationism: Definition from Answers.com
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.


Read more: isolationism: Definition from Answers.com
Now who is the dumbass?

 

[Kuros]

Interesting form of refutation being used here: refutation by supporter.

Apparently, the statusquotidians can't attack Ron Paul on the issues, so they're going to go after his personality . . . or rather, his supporters' personalities. Its still an ad hominem attack: Ron's policies are wrong because of his bad character. But it is even more indirect and removed. Ron Paul is a nice guy, but his policies are wrong because of the bad character displayed by those who agree with his ideas.

Its all very insipid.

You came in late so I'll assume you didn't read the posts that inspired this.
Poster A said they found Pauls stance X extreme. The RP supporter addressed this with such intellectual phrases as brain dead bitch die balls etc...
I received similar responses for not commenting on his stances at all, but rather how the Dems would use them.
This went on for a while before some of us noticed a pattern toward anyone who doesn't totally worship the guy and here we are...

What do the rantings of one (alleged) Ron Paul supporter have to do with the fundamental validity of Ron Paul's ideas or his candidacy?

BTW, if Poster A has said he finds Paul's stance X extreme, that seems like a pretty hollow complaint. Yes, Ron Paul is outside the mainstream. Well, haven't you heard? Americans have pretty low confidence in mainstream policies and ideas.

Ron Paul predicted the economic crash. He, like Obama, forewarned us about the war in Iraq. And he audited the Federal Reserve, revealing their $16 trillion, yes $16 trillion, in hidden loans to international banks.

 

[Liberty]

when he is against treaties, foreign aid and any kind of military assistance even peace keeping and training missions then he is yes an isolationist.

that's not what isolationism is, dumbass. And again, please quote where Paul says he is for isolationism. Everything I have heard from his mouth when it comes to foreign policy is open free trade is good, and no entangling alliances that burn up our treasury. Thats not isolationism, thats the constitution. What gives the USA the authority to manipulate and interfere with the rights of other sovereign countries that pose no threat to us and have not attacked us?

isolationism: Definition from Answers.com
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.


Read more: isolationism: Definition from Answers.com
Now who is the dumbass?

right. he NEVER said that. Idiot.