Thread: What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

You're probably going to get attacked for this. I must dissagree with you that FOX is the least bias. You are right that the reporters are straight edged, but the commentators are known best, and they are known for their conservative views. On a side note, there is something to the fact that FOX has both liberals and conservative, but is known for its conservatives.

I am just fed up with all TV news. I stopped watching them after seeing 9/11 replays 24 hours a day. They all pass their slants off as fact, fact or not. Its a finger pointing match. As I said earlier, if we get a Democrat president, I will start watching again.

They have a lot of liberal commentators. Those just aren't as popular as the conservative ones. Liberal commentators just don't make big names for themselves because they usually don't have truth to work with. That is why Air America turned out to be such a disaser. Liberal commentators don't know how to capture an audience without using fiction, as in the cases of John Stewart and Steven Colbert. They are huge because they use fictitious concepts and act like total jackasses to get attention. Conservative commentators are great at acting like total jackasses with real concepts.

Originally Posted by universal mind

I know that Fox is the least biased

Now I know for sure there is something wrong with you.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Now I know for sure there is something wrong with you.

I'm sure the numerology and prophecy sources you use give a much clearer picture of reality.

Nice strawman. I don't watch any news because I'd rather know I'm not informed than untruthfully believe I am informed.

Ignoring how obvious it is that Fox news is run by unapologetically subjective journalists I'll just mention a general note on the News.

There was a poll taken in California asking if people thought violent crime was going up in the state and the vast majority of people that get their news from the TV said yes, even though violent crime in the state had actually gone down. The reason is every single year violent crime gets more and more news time, even though there's less and less of it. Why? Because violent crime sells.

Fox News has an audience it sells to, the republicans, and it does whatever it can to reinforce negative associations with liberals (like the one above) and censor real news. I don't think it's that much worse than the other news networks though. If you were to compare it to a new network that reported the truth in a panoramic manner they would all look pretty much the exact same.

But all this censorship of Ron Paul only helps his campaign. If only the republicans watched the debates, then they'd see how untouchable he is as a candidate. He just schools the other candidates.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Nice strawman. I don't watch any news because I'd rather know I'm not informed than untruthfully believe I am informed.

Ignoring how obvious it is that Fox news is run by unapologetically subjective journalists I'll just mention a general note on the News.

There was a poll taken in California asking if people thought violent crime was going up in the state and the vast majority of people that get their news from the TV said yes, even though violent crime in the state had actually gone down. The reason is every single year violent crime gets more and more news time, even though there's less and less of it. Why? Because violent crime sells.

Fox News has an audience it sells to, the republicans, and it does whatever it can to reinforce negative associations with liberals (like the one above) and censor real news. I don't think it's that much worse than the other news networks though. If you were to compare it to a new network that reported the truth in a panoramic manner they would all look pretty much the exact same.

But all this censorship of Ron Paul only helps his campaign. If only the republicans watched the debates, then they'd see how untouchable he is as a candidate. He just schools the other candidates.

Straw man? No, a straw man argument involves a false assessment of someone else's claim. I did not make anything up to say that mystic believes in numerology and prophecy. He admits it. His whole argument was that there is something wrong with me, so I ragged him back. No strawman. Sorry.

Read what I said in the ecstasy thread and what I have said in the religion forum and then try to tell me that I am a Republican.

All of the news networks have some bias, but Fox News has the least. MSNBC has a fierce agenda of news slanting against Bush. Even their straight news reporters show it every day. Fox News has analysts that are biased toward Republicans, but they have several that are biased toward Democrats. Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren are all liberal commentators. The straight news reporters are far less biased than the straight news reporters at MSNBC and CNN. However, I don't think any of the three can get away with lying, which is very different from mere slanting. They are all big time corporations in obsessive competition with each other, and MSNBC and Fox News have personal hate against each other. CNN hates Fox almost as much as MSNBC does. They are all fiending to see another one say something that is a lie so they can sink them once and for all. Look at what happened to Dan Rather and CBS Nes when he tried that junk. Rather got fired, and CBS News still has not recovered from the lie. Left wing blog sites, on the other hand, don't have that kind of pressure.

Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show? Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball. Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers. Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind. I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll. His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda. I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions. Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

I didn't use a fallacy with Mystic. I engaged in the silly insult war he wanted to have because he could not counter my point about Fox News. HE committed the ad hominem fallacy. His point was 100% pure ad hominem, so I threw it back at him. An ad hominem used back at a total ad hominem is not fallacious. That's like saying if somebody calls you a booty head and you call him a biscuit face that you have committed a fallacy. Don't be silly. Was I supposed to post my psychological history because, "There's something wrong with you," is a serious debate point? Get real.

Ron Paul did very briefly touch Bill's issue about Iran, but he mostly kept playing the, "But let's talk about this other subject instead," game instead of giving direct responses. Iran is a megaserious matter we have on our hands right now, and Bill was trying to get Ron to talk about what we should do about them. Ron barely did it at all. He just said we shouldn't be in the Middle East at all, even though he voted for the war in Afghanistan. How consistent. What a stable candidate. And Ron also said that what Iran is doing is legitimate. A Ron Paul presidency would be a horrifying nightmare for the entire world. It's a good thing we don't have to realistically worry about such a thing.

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia has half the terrorists, so why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia and just focusing on Iran?

Bill O'Reilly was trying to set the stage of the world, stating opinions as facts. He wanted Ron Paul to asnwer yes or no is Iran a threat, but that's a bullshit question because if Ron says no then he can get attacked for an outrageous statement and if he says yes then O'Reilly would just call him a flip flopper. O'Reilly was trying to set the stage as if Paul didn't care about Iran, and that's just not true, he simply has his priorities straight and Iran should not be our top priority.

The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.

Ron Paul Is The Last Hope For The American People


Vote Libertarian Or Watch Your Freedoms Be Stripped Away!

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia...

That's called dodging. Paul could have talked about the specifics of Iran and the full details of how to deal with them and then gone off about Saudi Arabia. Instead, he played the side step game.

Iran supports suicide bomber terrorism on a large scale, and we are their biggest enemy. They are working on nuclear weapons. That is a humongous problem. If Ron Paul does not have the capacity to understand that, then he is not even qualified to be the mayor of a hick town.

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

The question was this: What should be done about Iran?

If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are, then he could have brought that up after answering the incredibly important question. The idea of electing somebody who does not take Iran seriously is an absolute nightmare.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are,

The argument is officially over between us until you do some fact checking on the state of the world, bro.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The argument is officially over between us until you do some fact checking on the state of the world, bro.

Could you be a little more vague?

I think what happened was a pretty common act by O’Reilly, he asks a question and when someone tries to answer he starts shouting then goes on to the next question and says how they didn’t answer their last one. O’Reilly uses a tactic many lawyers do to make people look bad on the stand. If I was ever on O’Reilly I would have to say ‘Yes, well before I answer that I will need to qualify my answer”

He wasn’t giving Mr. Paul any time to explain himself, look at it this way, when it comes to politics how easy is it to answer a question, such as O’Reilly asked, and not explain yourself for a few minutes? Of course I don’t consider this much of a debate as O’Reilly just trying to make Ron Paul look bad, I’m somewhat surprised Fox news even had him on TV.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.

Oh yeah, that threat. The United States government wants to nuke itself out of existence. Good point.

O’Reilly already knows he is destroying the country. That's the difference between him and a ignorant person like Universal Mind.

Omnius Deus is absolutely correct. The federal reserve is what needs to be dealt with. Iran is just another target for the Nazis of the forth Reich.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

O’Reilly already knows he is destroying the country. That's the difference between him and a ignorant person like Universal Mind.

Tell me more about La La Land. But first, actually counter some points I made.

You know what. I was going to post some long post about how you obviously know nothing. But then I noticed you were form Mississippi. I have been there, for a while.

Keep thinking like you do, you are in lala land. Say what you want about me but I know how you think...you will make all sorts of assumptions about me because of how you have been programmed by the MSM (all of it, not just fox)

Think for yourself, gosh.

Originally Posted by jaasum

You know what. I was going to post some long post about how you obviously know nothing. But then I noticed you were form Mississippi. I have been there, for a while.

Keep thinking like you do, you are in lala land. Say what you want about me but I know how you think...you will make all sorts of assumptions about me because of how you have been programmed by the MSM (all of it, not just fox)

Think for yourself, gosh.

That's great. Another ad hominem post that counters none of my points. The last two people who responded to me in this thread had nothing left to do but throw empty personal insults at me. Rudeness is a perfectly good subtitute for actual retort, in La La Land. Thank you for taking this debate absolutely nowhere.

I didn't even read your posts get off your high-horse, and I think lala land is a insult last time I checked.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I didn't even read your posts get off your high-horse, and I think lala land is a insult last time I checked.

Yes, I return pure insults with insults, but at least I challenged you and Mystic to actually debate. I don't return debate points with pure insults, and that is what you two have done. You have a Ron Paul promotion in your sig line, and you have nothing to say on the subject in a thread about Ron Paul. By the way, since you have started showing your true colors of rudeness lately, do you think Ron Paul is the cause of himself?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show? Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball. Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers. Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind. I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll. His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda. I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions. Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.

Okay, I will refute one of your points then.

What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill O’Reilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"

"Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.

Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.

No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.

And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!

Even our AIDS relief is to fight terrorism and spread democracy in other parts of the world. I honestly do not see where you get your information that refutes proven facts. I don't see how what George Bush said after the attacks dismisses the reasons, that were admitted, of why we were attacked.

Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda.

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."

When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows.

Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.

Originally Posted by jaasum

What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill O’Reilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"

My God you have gone from, "Hi, I'm Mr. Friendly," in the Religion forum to showing what you are really about. Why are you so rotten about everything now?

O'Reilly asks yes/no questions because they get to the heart of important issues. "Should we make decision A, or should we not?" Left wing fanatics despise yes/no questions because they greatly minimize their abilities to dodge by babbling.

Originally Posted by jaasum

"Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.

Whether Iraq is and will later be safer without Saddam Hussein is an extremely important question. People who don't want to give a yes/no answer to it are people who want to dodge it. Yes, Iraq is safer even now, and Iraq will be much safer in the long run.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.

My critical thinking tells me that I have yet to see Ron Paul give the slightest trace of responsibility to Al Qaeda for their actions. He even said that U.S. presence in the Middle East "CAUSED" 9/11. That might as well be a Bin Laden quote. Does your critical thinking notice the same thing?

Originally Posted by jaasum

No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.

We have captured and killed tons of members of Al Qaeda, inculding many of their highest ranking members. What are you talking about? We tried really hard to catch Bin Laden, but he is apparently hiding in Pakistan, and we have national security reasons for not invading Pakistan. Al Qaeda was not our only enemy. There are other terrorist organizations with the same goals, and preventative measures are necesssary. We are also going after governments that could help those organizations get their hands on WMD's. It is not as simple as going after Al Qaeda, which we in fact have been doing. The question about marching orders was a joke meant to illustrate the extent to which Paul agrees with Al Qaeda and promotes their philosophy, however inadvertently.

Originally Posted by jaasum

And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!

The reason for the 9/11 attacks was that Al Qaeda decided to commit them. Everything else you mention can qualify only as influences and Al Qaeda's excuses, if anything. We are in Iraq for many reasons. I am so sick of listing them here. Look up any Iraq thread in Extended Discussion and read my long list of reasons for our presence in Iraq.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda.

If our government ever becomes genocidal and a supporter of suicide bomber terrorist organizations and the citizens cannot do a damn thing about it, I hope somebody does come here and overthrow them. Yes, we have a right and a major need to meddle in the affairs of our enemies. We would be screwed if we didn't. The world would be screwed if we didn't.

Fox News shows the views of all sides. They even have liberals giving their views every segment on the commentary shows. Their straight news just shows the news. I don't know why you keep harping on them any way. They are just one of my many news sources.

Originally Posted by jaasum

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."

When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows.

No, it is a joke. I saw that clip. It is amazing how seriously liberals take that joke. But it is true that most of the Daily Show audience, now that the Daily Show is a PROPAGANDA show, is college kids on the left, and of course pot runs rampant with that audience.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.

Fox News showed the entire clip of Ron Paul's talk of how 9/11 was COMPLETELY America's fault. You are sounding very paranoid and vicious about what you assume I think of what you are saying. I've given major details on my disagreements with your points, so you can relax now.

You seemed like a pretty good guy when I first came across you in the Religion forum. You are really a disappointment.