Idiot Ron Paul nails the lid shut. Ask the Candidates to Condemn REAGAN (not Isreal)

[teapartysamurai]

Heh.. it's getting so predictable. You see these threads started screeching about Ron Paul being some kind of crazy person and it's pretty much always after he's pointed out some blatant hypocrisy of the status quo.

Go RP!

What hypocrisy?

The United States has done "prisoner exchanges' for a long time.

Isreal just did one!

That's all Reagan was doing to get some hostages home.

But to tie it to dealing with TERRORISTS as we are having to now is stupid.

AND THEN to add to it when talking about Gitmo "Those are suspects not terrorists!"

That's just irresponsible on top of stupid.

 

[dblack]

AND THEN to add to it when talking about Gitmo "Those are suspects not terrorists!"

That's just irresponsible on top of stupid.

How is that irresponsible OR stupid? It's the truth. Just because someone is accused of a crime, doesn't make them guilty of it. That's exactly why Gitmo is such an abomination morally and why it is the ultimate hypocrisy from a country that prides itself on individual rights.

No doubt some, maybe even most, of the prisoners at Guantanamo are guilty. But we won't know until we prosecute them in a court of law. Our hypocrisy, our national disgrace, is that in our panic over the terrorist attacks, we've tossed aside our most cherished values (innocent until proven guilty) in exchange for the false security of the police state.

 

[Dr.Drock]

TPS knows about all the released Gitmo detainees right? Or am I bringing too much common sense to this thread?

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you're at a crossroads with 2 choices.

1.) Admit the detainees are suspects, not categorically all terrorists and that you look like an idiot in this thread.
2.) Admit Bush knowingly released terrorists.

 

[teapartysamurai]

True or false: Ron Reagan agrees with Ron Paul's beef here, with the action he was discussing.

That Terrorists in Gitmo are "suspects" not terrorists?

That's just stupid!

Look, I've said it before, and I will say it again.

Reagan's beef was with the Soviet Union. He was dedicated to bringing it down and he did so. For that, he should be forever honored.

That he made some mistakes on the ME is not even in debate. He did! Lebanon, comes instantly to mind. That was a screw up. No argument.

No president can be perfect.

HOWEVER, to compare what Reagan did to what we should do NOW is just idiotic! The situations are just not the same, not even close.

People forget that those hostages that Reagan got home had been in captivity for a long time--a very long time. At the behest of their families, Reagan did what he could to just get them home. I supported Reagan in doing so (at the time)

If it can be shown that Reagan's actions increased hostage taking, let me know. I see no evidence of that.

The exact opposite is true. The Iranian hostages were let go the minute Reagan got into office, because the Iranians knew Reagan would bomb their ass.

When an American was killed in Germany, Kadafi felt Reagan's wrath.

In fact, we didn't have a real ME problem UNTIL Clinton became president, and OBL realized we have changed from a Reagan (who would bomb their ass) to a paper tiger like Clinton.

(Although, I will add the caveat that it was stupid for Bush 41 to invade Somalia in the first place. I will never understand why he did that. It was just DUMB! Another reason I didn't vote for Bush 41 in 1992.)

Whaaaaaa???

You may not remember it or it may be before your time, but there had been some hostages (not the 50 hostages Iran took from our embassy).

They were of no political consequence. They were just these poor guys that Iran had been holding.

Reagan traded some airplane parts for them, and it became that big "Iran/Contra scandal."

I mean it was typical Democrats trying ANYTHING to get Reagan, but that's what it really boiled down to. Some stupid airplane parts to get those poor bastards home.

I think that's why the voters didn't care, despite the fact the news media and the Democrats tried like hell to make hay over it.

A) They knew Reagan may have made a deal with the devil, but it was to get Americans home.

B) They didn't care that Reagan went around the communist sympathizing Democrats in the Congress to fight communism in Central America. In fact they supported it.

That's why people supported Oliver North when he testified before Congress and it blew up in the Democrat's face.

AND why Bush41 won in 88.

The Democrats thought it a big deal, They will still rant about when given the chance. But the voters didn't care.

 

[Ravi]

It's pretty stupid to start a Ron Paul bashing thread wherein he turns out to be the one that is correct.

Only teapeespam could pull it off.

 

[Oddball]

Heh.. it's getting so predictable. You see these threads started screeching about Ron Paul being some kind of crazy person and it's pretty much always after he's pointed out some blatant hypocrisy of the status quo.

Go RP!

Doesn't matter....On the longshot that he's nominated, they'll still vote for him for no better reason than the (R) by his name.

 

[teapartysamurai]

AND THEN to add to it when talking about Gitmo "Those are suspects not terrorists!"

That's just irresponsible on top of stupid.

How is that irresponsible OR stupid? It's the truth. Just because someone is accused of a crime, doesn't make them guilty of it. That's exactly why Gitmo is such an abomination morally and why it is the ultimate hypocrisy from a country that prides itself on individual rights.

No doubt some, maybe even most, of the prisoners at Guantanamo are guilty. But we won't know until we prosecute them in a court of law. Our hypocrisy, our national disgrace, is that in our panic over the terrorist attacks, we've tossed aside our most cherished values (innocent until proven guilty) in exchange for the false security of the police state.

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS YOU DIPSTICKS!

I mean this is the same crap the Obama admin wanted to do. Try them in a court of law, like they were American Citizens.

You try terrorists and war criminals at military tribunals, aka Nuremberg.

Geesh!

 

[dblack]

It's pretty stupid to start a Ron Paul bashing thread wherein he turns out to be the one that is correct.

He usually is. Why do you think they bash him so much?

 

[Dr.Drock]

There's always a jealousy from neoconservatives towards the only true conservative in the party, Ron Paul.

It'll never end, only a sky high level of jealousy could bring about the constant insecurity towards Ron Paul that you see from posters like TPS.

 

[dblack]

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS YOU DIPSTICKS!

Hmm.... I wonder how we know that? Have they had a chance to prove their citizenship? How would we decide if they're telling the truth or not?

You try terrorists and war criminals at military tribunals, aka Nuremberg.

No, that would be very nearly sane. Apparently, what 'you do' is keep them in an offshore gulag in perpetuity - or until they become useful as bargaining chips.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Foreign aid to Israel makes Israel dependent on us and stops their growth of independence. Paul was correct. And the people in Gitmo are suspects, screaming "that's stupid" is not a debating point.

 

[teapartysamurai]

TPS knows about all the released Gitmo detainees right? Or am I bringing too much common sense to this thread?

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you're at a crossroads with 2 choices.

1.) Admit the detainees are suspects, not categorically all terrorists and that you look like an idiot in this thread.
2.) Admit Bush knowingly released terrorists.

That's like saying prisoners of wars are "suspects."

I mean POWs have more rights than these scumbags at Gitmo because POWS fall under the Geneva Convention. Terrorists don't!

They aren't wearing the uniform of a country.

They are without country, openly commiting acts of war on this country.

And YOU IDIOTS want to try them in American courts like the are American Citizens.

And who Bush AND Obama has let loose backs up my argument more than yours, since a lot of those set loose immediately returned to terrorism.

More Guantanamo Detainees Are Returning To Terror Upon Release | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: Intel Report Confirmed 18 Freed Gitmo Detainees Returned to Terror--Including in Afghanistan--Before Obama Ordered Closing of Prison | CNSnews.com

You libs just can't think out of your little talking points boxes. That's yoru problem!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's pretty stupid to start a Ron Paul bashing thread wherein he turns out to be the one that is correct.

He usually is. Why do you think they bash him so much?

He is? Sounds like policy positions, not statements of fact...

I like the libertarian side of Paul, but then he goes off on his isolationist tears and I'm done. He comes off as a bit of a loon, at least in my opinion.

 

[teapartysamurai]

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS YOU DIPSTICKS!

Hmm.... I wonder how we know that? Have they had a chance to prove their citizenship? How would we decide if they're telling the truth or not?

You try terrorists and war criminals at military tribunals, aka Nuremberg.

No, that would be very nearly sane. Apparently, what 'you do' is keep them in an offshore gulag in perpetuity - or until they become useful as bargaining chips.

Like Rush Limbaugh says. When someone wants to make a fool of themselves, don't argue with them. Just get out of the way and let them hang themselves.

You guys go with that and see how many sympathetic voters you get for those "poor victims" at Gitmo. You run with that.

See ya in 2012 when someone other than Ron Paul is our candidate!

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's pretty stupid to start a Ron Paul bashing thread wherein he turns out to be the one that is correct.

He usually is. Why do you think they bash him so much?

He is? Sounds like policy positions, not statements of fact...

I like the libertarian side of Paul, but then he goes off on his isolationist tears and I'm done. He comes off as a bit of a loon, at last in my opinion.

Try more like a lot of loon.

I mean the terrorists at Gitmo are "suspects" not terrorists?

Yeesh!

 

[teapartysamurai]

There's always a jealousy from neoconservatives towards the only true conservative in the party, Ron Paul.

It'll never end, only a sky high level of jealousy could bring about the constant insecurity towards Ron Paul that you see from posters like TPS.

Yeah, we are all soooooooooooooooooooooo jealous of Ron Paul.

You run with that!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He usually is. Why do you think they bash him so much?

He is? Sounds like policy positions, not statements of fact...

I like the libertarian side of Paul, but then he goes off on his isolationist tears and I'm done. He comes off as a bit of a loon, at last in my opinion.

Try more like a lot of loon.

I mean the terrorists at Gitmo are "suspects" not terrorists?

Yeesh!

That's where libertarianism runs off the rails... I think Lincoln warned us that, and I paraphrase, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".

 

[Dot Com]

TPS knows about all the released Gitmo detainees right? Or am I bringing too much common sense to this thread?

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you're at a crossroads with 2 choices.

1.) Admit the detainees are suspects, not categorically all terrorists and that you look like an idiot in this thread.
2.) Admit Bush knowingly released terrorists.

Agreed. TPS "leaps" before "looking" AGAIN
New Statesman - How Guantanamo's prisoners were sold

The payments help us see why so many innocent prisoners ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Musharraf writes that "millions" were paid for 369 prisoners - the minimum rate was apparently $5,00 0, enough to tempt a poor Pakistani to shop an unwanted Arab to the Americans, gift-wrapped with a story that he was up to no good in Afghanistan.

 

[dblack]

That's like saying prisoners of wars are "suspects."

I mean POWs have more rights than these scumbags at Gitmo because POWS fall under the Geneva Convention. Terrorists don't!

They aren't wearing the uniform of a country.

They are without country, openly commiting acts of war on this country.

And YOU IDIOTS want to try them in American courts like the are American Citizens.

Make up your mind. Is it a war or not? If it's a war, then they are prisoners of war (and as you point out, that means they have MORE rights than ordinary criminals). If it's not a war, then they are suspects and court is exactly where they belong.

What you're defending is the power to lock up people in perpetuity merely on an accusation. That's about as antithetical to traditional US values as anything I can imagine.

 

[Ravi]

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS YOU DIPSTICKS!

Hmm.... I wonder how we know that? Have they had a chance to prove their citizenship? How would we decide if they're telling the truth or not?

You try terrorists and war criminals at military tribunals, aka Nuremberg.

No, that would be very nearly sane. Apparently, what 'you do' is keep them in an offshore gulag in perpetuity - or until they become useful as bargaining chips.

Like Rush Limbaugh says. When someone wants to make a fool of themselves, don't argue with them. Just get out of the way and let them hang themselves.

You guys go with that and see how many sympathetic voters you get for those "poor victims" at Gitmo. You run with that.

See ya in 2012 when someone other than Ron Paul is our candidate!

You don't treat people with getting votes in mind. You treat them according to the constitution.

That little piece of paper that apparently means nothing to you.