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

Whatever it's been real.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Whatever it's been real.

Peace.

All cock-blockery and tom-foolery aside...

Anyone have any news or new developments with Ron Paul. I don't want to see him pushed off to the wayside.

(And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)

Originally Posted by SolSkye

All cock-blockery and tom-foolery aside...

Anyone have any news or new developments with Ron Paul. I don't want to see him pushed off to the wayside.

(And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)

Ron Paul is whipping major ass. I think he's going to be the president.

Do you have those Al Qaeda counterarguments yet? Uh, no.

Screw Ron Paul...Obama or Hilary for pres!

holy great yellow bananas! after years of being indifferent to every candidate, I have found a liking to ron paul

I was watching the republican debate when my sister corrected me to tell me "were democratic" me, never remembering which was which can't tell the difference but I had fun laughing at the candidates. that new york guy looks like an ass.

but I admit that both of us took the republican debate a little more seriously when this old man took the stage

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100% of the blame on the United States.

universal mind, please leave this forum for a while. because you need time to think before you debate any further. you're being illogical and can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements. at no point did Paul blame America. You are doing what you do with everyone on this board, taking their words and twisting to some contorted idea they are not expressing. I don't think you mean to do this on purpose, but it's sad, and it's dangerous in a presidential election if you can't understand what a candidate is saying.

If you some how think apples means oranges, don't vote!

All Paul is saying that there is a real cause and effect here. We attacked, they attacked. Who attacked first years ago is not the point, the point is we did attack them for many years prior 9-11. This is important to the American people, because a lot of ignorant Americans do not know we were in Iraq prior to 9-11, which 'could' explain 'why' it happened.

Twisting Paul's words around to "blaming America 100%" is something the corrupt media does. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100% of the blame on the United States.

I never saw this post, so forgive me if it's already beeen retracted, but I just wanted to say:

Ron Paul has never (to the extent that I've seen) placed 100% of the blame on the U.S. What he's done is tried to bring public attention to the parts of the fight that IS the fault of the U.S. that is widely over-looked and/or completely ignored by so many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I encourage it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I never saw this post, so forgive me if it's already beeen retracted, but I just wanted to say:

Ron Paul has never (to the extent that I've seen) placed 100% of the blame on the U.S. What he's done is tried to bring public attention to the parts of the fight that IS the fault of the U.S. that is widely over-looked and/or completely ignored by so many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I encourage it.

I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East. I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists. If he has, I have not come across it yet. All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.

Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now. It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight. I blame the rapist. I blame the terrorists. They have no justification whatsoever in what they do. I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism. Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.

If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest. Innocent people could get stung. But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him. I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains. I don't see things that way at all.

Originally Posted by juroara

universal mind, please leave this forum for a while. because you need time to think before you debate any further. you're being illogical and can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements. at no point did Paul blame America. You are doing what you do with everyone on this board, taking their words and twisting to some contorted idea they are not expressing. I don't think you mean to do this on purpose, but it's sad, and it's dangerous in a presidential election if you can't understand what a candidate is saying.

If you some how think apples means oranges, don't vote!

All Paul is saying that there is a real cause and effect here. We attacked, they attacked. Who attacked first years ago is not the point, the point is we did attack them for many years prior 9-11. This is important to the American people, because a lot of ignorant Americans do not know we were in Iraq prior to 9-11, which 'could' explain 'why' it happened.

Twisting Paul's words around to "blaming America 100%" is something the corrupt media does. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Your condesension is weak and trashy. I said that all I ever see Paul doing is blaming America when he talks about our foreign policy issues. If you will show me a video of Ron Paul condemning terrorists or admitting to Bin Laden's answer to Q2 of his letter or talking about the fact that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have extremely unrealistic demands on us, I will recognize it. Can you? Until then, I stand by what I said, and you would be following your own philosophy by leaving the forum for a while.

Actually I have seen Ron Paul many times saying that terrorist is a problem, and he often points out how we should be going after Bin laden. He also happens to be against the war in Iraq and says its a diversion from the real problem which is Bin Laden, who we still have not caught.

Your problem isn't that he is weak on terrorism. Your problem is that he is to focused on capturing Bin Laden, and he doesn't support the other, largely unneeded actions, such as attacking Iraq.

He doesn't believe in spreading freedom by force but instead believes in spreading freedom by setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. You problem is you have no faith in mankind or any faith in the middle east. You don't not believe they can find freedom on their own so you believe we should invade them and force our ideals onto them untill they bend to our definition of freedom.

The fact is, the largest reason they hate us over there is because of our foreign policy. Anyone honest with themself knows this. Whats wrong with admiting it?

Originally Posted by Alric

Actually I have seen Ron Paul many times saying that terrorist is a problem, and he often points out how we should be going after Bin laden. He also happens to be against the war in Iraq and says its a diversion from the real problem which is Bin Laden, who we still have not caught.

Yes, he said we should focus on capturing Bin Laden. But he still talks as though what Bin Laden did and stilll does is our fault. He claims we should capture the poor baby out of control victim because our present and past Middle East policies are causing him to have a temper tantrum. I reallly wish Paul would read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America. I know Paul says terrorism is a problem. The issue is what he blames the problem on.

Originally Posted by Alric

Your problem isn't that he is weak on terrorism. Your problem is that he is to focused on capturing Bin Laden, and he doesn't support the other, largely unneeded actions, such as attacking Iraq.

We can focus all day on capturing Bin Laden, but he is in Pakistan, a nuclear ally we cannot invade because we need their alliance and in which the government cannot hand over Bin Laden because the necessary leader would be overthrown and replaced by an Islamofascist who would immediately have access to a nuclear weapon. Ron Paul can use a magnifying glass, a microscope, binoculars, and the Hubble telescope to focus on Bin Laden 24/7, but we cannot afford to have Musharaff hand him to us and cannot afford to invade Pakistan because both situations would throw off their government in a way that would make its new leadership far more dangerous than Al Qaeda. I wonder if Ron Paul knows that. And killing Bin Laden is not the same as killing Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is set to function just as well even without Bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Alric

He doesn't believe in spreading freedom by force but instead believes in spreading freedom by setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. You problem is you have no faith in mankind or any faith in the middle east. You don't not believe they can find freedom on their own so you believe we should invade them and force our ideals onto them untill they bend to our definition of freedom.

No, I do not have faith that oppressed dictatorships can find freedom on their own. It is not completely impossible, but what we are dealing with is way too serious to depend on something so close to impossible. And freedom is not some random principle we decided to "force" on oppressed nations. It is a right that all innocent people are entitled to. If children are being abused by their father in a home, the father has to go to jail and the children need a new home, especially if the father was attacking other homes and posing a major threat to even the ones he had not attacked yet except for when those homes drove him out of a home he had attacked. Freedom from oppressive authority is not an imposition. It is a granting of deserved rights, even if the household was sovereign.

Originally Posted by Alric

The fact is, the largest reason they hate us over there is because of our foreign policy. Anyone honest with themself knows this. Whats wrong with admiting it?

It might be their biggest problem with us, but their demands go way beyond the changing of it and into the zone of the outrageously unrealistic. It is not just the government they have a problem with. They want you dead too. That is a fact. They want to turn the entire world Islamofascist, with the Koran as the law book of every country. They are not "mind our own business" kinds of people. They are way up in your business and would rather die than back off of that. The Islamofascists are not going to stop until you and the rest of us become exactly the type of Muslim they want us to be with their version of what is a proper Islamofascist government. They admit this. Why can't Ron Paul?

He just doesn't care. And honestly I don't care either. They can say they want to kill us all they want thats not going to mean they can actually do it. Bankrupting the country hardly makes us any safer, and neither does blowing up other countries.

Your basicly saying we should kill them because they hate us.

Originally Posted by Alric

He just doesn't care. And honestly I don't care either. They can say they want to kill us all they want thats not going to mean they can actually do it. Bankrupting the country hardly makes us any safer, and neither does blowing up other countries.

Your basicly saying we should kill them because they hate us.

No, we should kill them because they are trying to kill us. Do you really question whether they actually can? They already have. The reason they are having such a hard time killing us now (on our soil) is that we keep foiling their plots. And we didn't blow up Iraq. We liberated it and planted a seed for a free and prosperous future.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East. I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists. If he has, I have not come across it yet. All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.

Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now. It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight. I blame the rapist. I blame the terrorists. They have no justification whatsoever in what they do. I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism. Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.

If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest. Innocent people could get stung. But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him. I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains. I don't see things that way at all.

I think your main issue is that you couldn't stand to see things that way, even if it were true, as is the case (understandably) with many Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, and I don't mean that insultingly. That's just how it appears.

I also think that (possibly because of that) you aren't giving Ron Paul's stance the credibility/understanding/attention that it actually deserves. As he's said, he does not believe that the fault lies entirely upon the U.S. (Your impression of that being his opinion is wrong.) Though the reason he is proposing that some, maybe even most of the fault is with the U.S. occupation, so adamantly, seems (at least to me) to be because that factor is being completely ignored by the media and pro-war advocates. His stance is very well-founded (and has an undeniably strong, scholarly base) and is not something that just oozes out of a so-called "bleeding-heart." I think a refusal to see this and take it into account is a very large part of your opinion of him.

Suicide Terrorism by Rep. Ron Paul

Further Information on Robert Pape

A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints in the Sand

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think your main issue is that you couldn't stand to see things that way, even if it were true, as is the case (understandably) with many Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, and I don't mean that insultingly. That's just how it appears.

I also think that (possibly because of that) you aren't giving Ron Paul's stance the credibility/understanding/attention that it actually deserves. As he's said, he does not believe that the fault lies entirely upon the U.S. (Your impression of that being his opinion is wrong.) Though the reason he is proposing that some, maybe even most of the fault is with the U.S. occupation, so adamantly, seems (at least to me) to be because that factor is being completely ignored by the media and pro-war advocates. His stance is very well-founded (and has an undeniably strong, scholarly base) and is not something that just oozes out of a so-called "bleeding-heart." I think a refusal to see this and take it into account is a very large part of your opinion of him.

Suicide Terrorism by Rep. Ron Paul

Further Information on Robert Pape

A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints in the Sand

No, Oneironaut, my view has nothing to do with a refusal to accept or consider anything. If I really believed that the United States were the bad guys and the cause of our own terrorism problem, I would be infuriated over it and screaming that we need to change our policies. But like I said, I do not blame a rape victim because I think her skirt was too short. Islamofascists hate us because our women's skirts are too short, figuratively and literally. The terrorists are not accomplishing anything except getting lots of innocent people and themselves killed and getting their governments overthrown, so their actions are not the least bit understandable. They are acting mindlessly and with great evil. Their irrationality factor is the biggest problem in the entire picture, by far.

Ron Paul argued in that link that Islam itself and a quest for Heaven are not the number one factors behind suicide terrorism. I agree with that. The number one factor behind suicide terrorism is the influence the West, particularly the United States, is having on world culture. Our presence in the Middle East does greatly increase that factor because in being there plus changing the governments away from complete control of their citizens, we are having a much more direct effect on Middle Eastern culture than we otherwise would. But even without any presence in the Middle East, we would be having a major "infidel" influence on their land and people. We are being sacrilegious either way, in their view. Our influence is greater than ever now that we have world wide media, the internet, Youtube, etc. Those were not issues twenty years ago. The world is really getting to know itself now. The Girls Gone Wild effect we are having on the world is what has the Islamofascists pissing fire more than anything, and being in the Middle East and freeing nations is making that factor much stronger than otherwise. But that factor is here to stay in very powerful form, even if we leave the Middle East.

The only way we can stop seeming so sacrilegious toward the "holy land" is to take down all of our television and internet communication that reaches the Middle East. Even then, their hatred for us would not cease. We would also have to stop preserving the democracy of Israel, and then we would still have to become a Muslim nation with a Muslim government, and we would even have to make sure it is the right kind according to the Islamofascists we are dealing with presently. I agree that if we left the Middle East we would have less passion against us. Everything I just listed is an added factor without which there would be less passion against us in the Middle East. But in order to make it go away, we would have to become exactly like they are, which is completely unreaslistic. The idea of taking down all media that affects the Middle East is unrealistic. The idea that the hate would disappear if we left the Middle East is just flat out false. The only choice we have is to transform the Middle East.

Thats not a fair example. Its nothing like blaming a rape victim for having to short of a skirt. Its like blaming the drunk guy that spit it someones face. Yes the other person is totally wrong and has no right to punch him in the face, but the guy was still asking for it.

Just like how we bring a lot of our problems on ourself. Obviously anyone trying to kill people is bad and evil and they are wrong. But we can clean up our side of the problem. At the very least you can talk about the problems. Ignoring them and acting like we are perfect, hardly solves anything.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats not a fair example. Its nothing like blaming a rape victim for having to short of a skirt. Its like blaming the drunk guy that spit it someones face. Yes the other person is totally wrong and has no right to punch him in the face, but the guy was still asking for it.

Just like how we bring a lot of our problems on ourself. Obviously anyone trying to kill people is bad and evil and they are wrong. But we can clean up our side of the problem. At the very least you can talk about the problems. Ignoring them and acting like we are perfect, hardly solves anything.

We started out protecting democracy (which you call spitting in somebody's face), and then we had to fight terrorism while protecting and later spreading democracy. Those are not morally wrong actions. I disagree with my government on a lot of things, but this is not one of them. And Al Qaeda literally believes that our women's skirts are too short. They don't even think women should show their faces, much less their legs. That is part of why they hate us and want to kill us. Just think what effect Wild On and Girls Gone Wild have on Al Qaeda.

We didn't start off protecting anything. We starting off with meddling in the affairs of other countries. And obviously when you are spreading 'democracy' by force people have problems with it.

Originally Posted by Alric

We didn't start off protecting anything. We starting off with meddling in the affairs of other countries. And obviously when you are spreading 'democracy' by force people have problems with it.

We meddled in the affairs of Israel's democracy by protecting it. The people who have a problem with the spreading of democracy are the people who don't value the freedoms of others. They don't have my sympathy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We meddled in the affairs of Israel's democracy by protecting it. The people who have a problem with the spreading of democracy are the people who don't value the freedoms of others. They don't have my sympathy.

The problem is that they don't want democracy. If they had it, the first person they would elect would be some radical who would take it away from them. Then what do we do? Protect them from themselves forever?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

The problem is that they don't want democracy. If they had it, the first person they would elect would be some radical who would take it away from them. Then what do we do? Protect them from themselves forever?

They vote in higher percentages than even we do, despite the death threats. The numbers of nut cases who despise democracy will start wearing thin as the country advances.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East. I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists. If he has, I have not come across it yet. All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.

Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now. It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight. I blame the rapist. I blame the terrorists. They have no justification whatsoever in what they do. I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism. Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.

If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest. Innocent people could get stung. But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him. I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains. I don't see things that way at all.

Your analogy proves you don't understand the situation at all. Our dress isn't "too short and tight" it would be something more along the lines of we broke into a mans house, tied his kids up and raped his wife, so in return he broke into our house and killed our entire family.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Your analogy proves you don't understand the situation at all. Our dress isn't "too short and tight" it would be something more along the lines of we broke into a mans house, tied his kids up and raped his wife, so in return he broke into our house and killed our entire family.

Oh God, it's you again. You're Mr. Friendly from the Religion forum. If you want to get into a house setting for the analogy, we are hated because we went into a mass murderer's house to arrest him and to free his brainwashed family members, many of whom have Stockholm Syndrome and many of whom think we are the saviours of the world. He had been tying up kids and raping women (in this analogy and in actual reality). So had the heads of the surrounding households. Furthermore, he and the other heads, as well as some of the people who lived in their houses, hated us in the first place because our women's skirts are too short, in this analogy and in reality. He had broken into one of his neighbors' houses, and we made him leave that neighbor's house. We allowed him to continue to be a home owner as long as he followed certain rules, which he ignored. Many of those rules concerned his power to hurt neighbors and people in other parts of the city and his support for mass murderers who massly murder. He ignored the rules and kept being a mass murderer, so we freed his household and killed him. We are working on killing the other mass murderers and keeping his house free of his tyrranical style forever, as we are with his neighbor's house and most likely the houses of more of his neighbors. I know you hate that.

Here is something from a mass murderer who hates how we are keeping the other mass murderer's house free. He wants to commit more evil over how short our women's skirts are. http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

LOL now I remember why I left.