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

[teapartysamurai]

(note but my goof is a teachable moment. IF ANY OF THE RON PAUL IDIOTS would have read the op, they would have seen I meant Reagan, not Israel. They never even read the op, before they opined on Israel.

Starting over. This is about REAGAN not Isreal. (My bad)

Breitbart.tv » Ron Paul Asks GOP Candidates to Condemn Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul about the people at Gitmo:


"They are suspects, they aren't terrorists!"


THIS GUY IS A COMPLETE IDIOT!


Like in 2008 when he blamed America for 9/11, Idiot Ron Paul just put the nail in the candidate coffin, again!


And watch. When he doesn't win (again) any primaries his zombie followers will start bleating it's all a conspiracy theory instead of facing the reality, Ron Paul loses these primaries because of the ABJECT STUPIDITY that comes out of his mouth!


Video at the link above.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's kind of revealing that Ron Paul bots don't care about condemning Reagan, but they are all in the other thread having wet dreams about the idea of Ron Paul condemning Isreal.

I hate to break it to you Ron Paul bots.

It was a typo. Ron Paul did not condemn Isreal.

 

[Avorysuds]

sigh....

 

[teapartysamurai]

sigh....

Breaks your heart to find out Ron Paul condemned Reagan, not Israel, huh?

 

[G.T.]

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

 

[Avorysuds]

sigh....

Breaks your heart to find out Ron Paul condemned Reagan, not Israel, huh?

He didn't... Nice Troll thread I hope it really takes off and you can spam the boards with little smiley faces.

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Ron Reagan?

Answer = True but that would just kill TPS. Didn't Newt back up Ron Paul by talking about how Reagan felt about the issue seconds later?

 

[Paulie]

It's kind of revealing that Ron Paul bots don't care about condemning Reagan, but they are all in the other thread having wet dreams about the idea of Ron Paul condemning Isreal.

I hate to break it to you Ron Paul bots.

It was a typo. Ron Paul did not condemn Isreal.

Get over yourself sweety. You fucked up and looked stupid. Bow out gracefully while you still CAN'T, and shut the fuck up about it.

 

[G.T.]

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

Ron Reagan?

Answer = True but that would just kill TPS. Didn't Newt back up Ron Paul by talking about how Reagan felt about the issue seconds later?

Yes.

And let's be clear.

Ron Paul was condemning an action, not a man.

The man who's action was being condemned, according to Newt Gingrich, agrees with condemning the action.

Thus, we do not have a responsible thread here, with any logical basis for a gripe.

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Ron Reagan?

Answer = True but that would just kill TPS. Didn't Newt back up Ron Paul by talking about how Reagan felt about the issue seconds later?

Yes.

And let's be clear.

Ron Paul was condemning an action, not a man.

The man who's action was being condemned, according to Newt Gingrich, agrees with condemning the action.

Thus, we do not have a responsible thread here, with any logical basis for a gripe.

Yup, and that is what Ron Paul haters provide. As I keep saying, the Ron Paul haters are the only thing more annoying than the Paul bots.

 

[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.)

 

[Rocko]

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

FALSE, Iran is a country not a terrorist organization.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

FALSE, Iran is a country not a terrorist organization.

Yes, but Iran had already taken 50 Americans hostage, so let's be honest here.

Iran has been a rogue state since the ousting of the Shah (and the Shah wasn't that great either)

However, the ME is center stage in foreign affairs since terroism became such a problem (since the 1993 original World Trade Center bombing).

It wasn't a blip on the screen in the 80s. The 500 lb gorilla in the room of foreign affairs at the time was the Soviet Union.

On that Reagan did a magnificent job.

But no president can be a Nostradameus. He can't know the future.

Reagan just wanted to get those poor people home and on that, I don't blame him.

If people can prove Reagan's actions are responsible for something like 9/11 (etc) let them try.

Frankly, I don't see it, and Ron Paul trying to tie Reagan into the present dilemna in the ME was just an immature "gotcha" moment for him and it proved, once again, he is not serious candidate.

I'm not as concerned about Ron Paul's reagan comment as his saying that the Gitmo detainees are only "suspects" not terrorists.

That scares the hell out of me.

It shows me this man should NEVER be responsible for protecting this country from terrorism.

Ron Paul is an idiot!

 

[Ravi]

It's kind of revealing that Ron Paul bots don't care about condemning Reagan, but they are all in the other thread having wet dreams about the idea of Ron Paul condemning Isreal.

I hate to break it to you Ron Paul bots.

It was a typo. Ron Paul did not condemn Isreal.

Get over yourself sweety. You fucked up and looked stupid. Bow out gracefully while you still CAN'T, and shut the fuck up about it.

Big freudian slip on her part.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's kind of revealing that Ron Paul bots don't care about condemning Reagan, but they are all in the other thread having wet dreams about the idea of Ron Paul condemning Isreal.

I hate to break it to you Ron Paul bots.

It was a typo. Ron Paul did not condemn Isreal.

Get over yourself sweety. You fucked up and looked stupid. Bow out gracefully while you still CAN'T, and shut the fuck up about it.

Oh big whoop! I did a typo.

I'd rather be guilty of a typo than DELIBERATELY looking stupid like the bots in the prior thread did by blabbering on about their hate for Israel without ONCE reading the op.

OR saying that the detainees at Gitmo are only "suspects" not terrorists as Ron Paul said.

Both are examples of true, drooling stupdity.

But a typo I immediately admitted and apologized for?

Big whoop. Only morons who can't do better in debate, harps on typos. I think it's obvious what category you fall into.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's kind of revealing that Ron Paul bots don't care about condemning Reagan, but they are all in the other thread having wet dreams about the idea of Ron Paul condemning Isreal.

I hate to break it to you Ron Paul bots.

It was a typo. Ron Paul did not condemn Isreal.

Get over yourself sweety. You fucked up and looked stupid. Bow out gracefully while you still CAN'T, and shut the fuck up about it.

Big freudian slip on her part.

Might have been. Ron Paul has certainly made it clear he doesn't like the Jews. From his newsletters in the 80s to his support for Hamas now.

 

[WatertheTree]

Hey TPS. Just shut your pie hole. The people love Ron Paul.

Your backwards idea's of deficit spending, government cronyism, and rule by the corporations is OVER.

Ron Paul Ad - Consistent - YouTube

 

[dblack]

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!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hey TPS. Just shut your pie hole. The people love Ron Paul.

Your backwards idea's of deficit spending, government cronyism, and rule by the corporations is OVER.

Ron Paul Ad - Consistent - YouTube

Yeah, that's why he win's all these primaries right?

keep living in that fantasy world!

 

[bodecea]

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???