Ron Paul: "They're Terrorists Because We're Occupiers".

[GHook93]

Assuming he actually wrote that (and let's not forget your history of lying on this board) what does that have to do with this discussion? Or any??

Ghook seemed eager to start a discussion with me, so I thought that I'd provide him with an opportunity to do so. If you care, ask him yourself. He won't deny writing it.

And i strongly suspect you are not a worthless sand ******.

I may be worthless, but I happen to not be an Arab.

Yep I dropped that little tipbit on on him. If you want to call Jews fans of Hitler than go **** yourself, nothing remains off limits

 

[GHook93]

Our president would Mirandize them and give them counsel.

No. Our president wouldn't. Law enforcement would -- and should. It's not only the people we like who get those things.



There is that segment of the population for whom that is true.

They would hate us even if no American soldier ever set foot on Muslim soil. We could leave the middle east today, sever all ties with Israel and they would still want us dead.

For some that is absolutely true. And what Ron Paul isn't saying.. and his followers won't acknowledge is that THAT is what they believe... that if we left Israel to its own devices, regardless of benefit to ourselves, then suddenly the terrorists would be our buddies.

My feeling is that there are things we do wrong (e.g. abu ghraib; waterboarding; invading Iraq) and things we do right. But we shouldn't stop doing the right things because it makes someone cranky.

We don't think terrorists would be our buddies if we "left Israel to its own devices." We think if we treated everyone equally, Muslims and Israel included, then there would be less terrorists. We don't think we should be giving financial or military aid to Israel, as it allows them to retain their own corruption and inefficiency, but nor do we think we should be sending financial or military aid to the Palestinians or any other muslims.

History has shown that is not the case. History has shown that when one doesn't keep the peace all hell breaks loose. Ron Ron of course ignores that. Makes sense when you cries foul about Pork yet ends up approving more pork than any other Republican (and a few Democrats) in the last election Presidential Primaries!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Our president wouldn't. Law enforcement would -- and should. It's not only the people we like who get those things.



There is that segment of the population for whom that is true.



For some that is absolutely true. And what Ron Paul isn't saying.. and his followers won't acknowledge is that THAT is what they believe... that if we left Israel to its own devices, regardless of benefit to ourselves, then suddenly the terrorists would be our buddies.

My feeling is that there are things we do wrong (e.g. abu ghraib; waterboarding; invading Iraq) and things we do right. But we shouldn't stop doing the right things because it makes someone cranky.

We don't think terrorists would be our buddies if we "left Israel to its own devices." We think if we treated everyone equally, Muslims and Israel included, then there would be less terrorists. We don't think we should be giving financial or military aid to Israel, as it allows them to retain their own corruption and inefficiency, but nor do we think we should be sending financial or military aid to the Palestinians or any other muslims.

History has shown that is not the case. History has shown that when one doesn't keep the peace all hell breaks loose. Ron Ron of course ignores that. Makes sense when you cries foul about Pork yet ends up approving more pork than any other Republican (and a few Democrats) in the last election Presidential Primaries!

That's not what history shows at all, and Ron Paul votes against all pork.

 

[CMike]

I figured you weren't an Arab.

How so?

I kind of figured that since you posted a pro-jihad youtube video in arabic that you were an arab.

I don't necessarily believe you that you aren't.

 

[Liability]

We don't think terrorists would be our buddies if we "left Israel to its own devices." We think if we treated everyone equally, Muslims and Israel included, then there would be less terrorists. We don't think we should be giving financial or military aid to Israel, as it allows them to retain their own corruption and inefficiency, but nor do we think we should be sending financial or military aid to the Palestinians or any other muslims.

History has shown that is not the case. History has shown that when one doesn't keep the peace all hell breaks loose. Ron Ron of course ignores that. Makes sense when you cries foul about Pork yet ends up approving more pork than any other Republican (and a few Democrats) in the last election Presidential Primaries!

That's not what history shows at all, and Ron Paul votes against all pork.

No. Dr. Paul does NOT vote against all pork. He does cast some symbolic preliminary votes against some pork in most cases. But he votes for tons of pork whenever he votes for any damn bill that includes spending provisions....

Dr. Paul has seen to it that he GETS some pork for his district, too.

He is, like most other politicians, just a poseur on that topic.

As a matter of backing up my rebuttal to the anti-pork myth perpetrated by the misleading efforts of Ron Paul and his supporters, take a peek: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

And it didn't end in ought seven. More recently: http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2009/03/ron_pauls_pork_problem.html

For the '09 list, see: http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html

 

[amrchaos]

He's a Libertarian who decided he wanted to win an election, so he switched parties.

He was winning as a Republican, first, wasn't he?

I agree with you that he isn't really a Republican. He's more of a third party kinda politician who simply uses the "(R)" after his name for convenience.

Don't conservatives do the same?? I mean, there is a difference between the two(republicans and conservatives), right?

 

[GHook93]

We don't think terrorists would be our buddies if we "left Israel to its own devices." We think if we treated everyone equally, Muslims and Israel included, then there would be less terrorists. We don't think we should be giving financial or military aid to Israel, as it allows them to retain their own corruption and inefficiency, but nor do we think we should be sending financial or military aid to the Palestinians or any other muslims.

History has shown that is not the case. History has shown that when one doesn't keep the peace all hell breaks loose. Ron Ron of course ignores that. Makes sense when you cries foul about Pork yet ends up approving more pork than any other Republican (and a few Democrats) in the last election Presidential Primaries!

That's not what history shows at all, and Ron Paul votes against all pork.

KK, do I always have to school you on this? Ron Ron toos $22.7 mil. That is hardly nothing!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

 

[Liability]

He's a Libertarian who decided he wanted to win an election, so he switched parties.

He was winning as a Republican, first, wasn't he?

I agree with you that he isn't really a Republican. He's more of a third party kinda politician who simply uses the "(R)" after his name for convenience.

Don't conservatives do the same?? I mean, there is a difference between the two(republicans and conservatives), right?

There IS a difference between R's and Conservatives, but conservatives are trying to make the R's more conservative.

Very few folks run AS "conservatives." They run as Republicans and note their conservative credentials (real or imagined).

But the point is, RuPaul did NOT, as had been claimed incorrectly in the post to which I was responding, "switch" parties. He's essentially a 3P candidate USING the convenient R.

 

[jillian]

No. Dr. Paul does NOT vote against all pork. He does cast some symbolic preliminary votes against some pork in most cases. But he votes for tons of pork whenever he votes for any damn bill that includes spending provisions....

Dr. Paul has seen to it that he GETS some pork for his district, too.

He is, like most other politicians, just a poseur on that topic.

Ron Paul never met an earmark he didn't like as long as it went to his district. So, once again, Kevin, while well-meaning, I'm sure, is living in fantasy land.

But then again, Ron Paul also purports to be all for term limits, but keeps on running and running and running for his seat.

He's a hyporcite... and not even a particularly smart one.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, Ron Paul may not be off the mark.

In my honest opinion, most of the problems that arise in the middle East stems mainly from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


The strangest thing about this is that the Palestianians, with wout an army, without militry or financial backing, actually holds the upper hand in the conflict. The problem are the basic concepts that is imbedded in the Palestian propaganda machine.

first off--stop talking about two state solution--Look to gain citizenship in Israel. Once they gain the right to vote, what is it in a name of a country?? Citizenship In the Israeli state and Democracy is the path way to peace.

Also, the terrorists are not Palestines friends since their actions tend to bring more chaos and destruction and blame to Palestians. In many ways, the terrorists are acting to undermine the legal authority and human rights of the Palestians who lack any type of fire power to conquer Israel.

A little military advie for future radicals--If you cannot win a war--swear off violence!! You will only suffer while losing what you wish to hold(like a coherent nation now broken up into, what 3parts? I thought it was a TWO-state solution, not a Four-state Solution!! Anyway, I am suggesting abandoning the multi-state soluton altogether!!)

How should the Palestinians proceed? Peaceful protests, de-militarizing the terrorists, embracing and embellishing themselves in the ideas of humanity and freedom, questioning the need of a heterogeneous ethnic/religious state, Acce3pt the idea of non-religious such as Jews and Christians living in the "promised land" without religious oppression(ie religious tolerance)

It may take a generation, but the change in poltical strategy will undermine the religious claim of allowing a state to exist for only one group of people and pretty much allow Palestianians/Israeli's a chance for peace.

A crazy idea, but It has been shown to work in India(against the British), South Africa(against apartheid) and even here in the States(against segregation). Why not in the Middle East??

 

[blu]

Assuming he actually wrote that (and let's not forget your history of lying on this board) what does that have to do with this discussion? Or any??

Ghook seemed eager to start a discussion with me, so I thought that I'd provide him with an opportunity to do so. If you care, ask him yourself. He won't deny writing it.

And i strongly suspect you are not a worthless sand ******.

I may be worthless, but I happen to not be an Arab.

Yep I dropped that little tipbit on on him. If you want to call Jews fans of Hitler than go **** yourself, nothing remains off limits

i thought all zionists pray to hitler? don't you & cmike have pictures of him over your bed?

 

[jillian]

i thought all zionists pray to hitler? don't you & cmike have pictures of him over your bed?

you really that anti-semitic and hateful?

or are you just flirting with him?

 

[blu]

i thought all zionists pray to hitler? don't you & cmike have pictures of him over your bed?

you really that anti-semitic and hateful?

or are you just flirting with him?

it is the truth. all the zionists in the world now can't even do 1% of what hitler did for their movement. if that is anti-semitic then so be it.

 

[jillian]

i thought all zionists pray to hitler? don't you & cmike have pictures of him over your bed?

you really that anti-semitic and hateful?

or are you just flirting with him?

it is the truth. all the zionists in the world now can't even do 1% of what hitler did for their movement. if that is anti-semitic then so be it.

yes, it's anti-semitic...mostly because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

[GHook93]

you really that anti-semitic and hateful?

or are you just flirting with him?

it is the truth. all the zionists in the world now can't even do 1% of what hitler did for their movement. if that is anti-semitic then so be it.

yes, it's anti-semitic...mostly because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Funny how the antisemites think that everything happened in 1948. That there was a flick of the switch and the boof the Jewish state was formed. Tel Aviv was was founded by Jews in 1909. Jerusalem had a Jewish majority even in the 1800s. Jews were migrating to Israel/Palestine during the 1800s when it was mostly a barren sandbox. The Jews had a functioning government, economy and police force all the way back to the 1910s. The rebirth of Israel was inevitable.

Nevertheless the antisemites like to tie Zionist to Hitler saying they were pals, because well they are arrogant and dishonest antisemites!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Islamic terrorists hide behind women and children.

The Israelis stand in front of the women and children.

Very, very clear as to who is right.

 

[blu]

The Islamic terrorists hide behind women and children.

The Israelis stand in front of the women and children.

Very, very clear as to who is right.

except when they are murdering them and then harvesting their organs

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Muslims are murdering women and children and harvesting their organs. Right, blu.

 

[blu]

The Muslims are murdering women and children and harvesting their organs. Right, blu.

israel admitted to doing it. don't be retarded

 

[JakeStarkey]

blu, you aren't bright enough to make such a statement, so give us a credible source.