Would Ron Paul have lied to you like Barrack Obama has? (deaths, Barack Obama)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

You didn't make a single intelligible point in this post, except about drone strikes & you're absolutely wrong about that one.

Drone strikes are so much worse than sending the military because if we have to send in the military it forces us to involve Congress, to think about our decision & it forces the President to garner support from the American people. Drone strikes are cowardly & convince people like yourself that arbitrarily killing brown people is just fine so long as you don't have to see or hear about it.

Pirates, oh boy .

1. you used intelligible wrong, because you obviousoky understood what i said, you just dont agree with it.


2. Your reasoning for saying that drones are worse is moronic. We are not arguing semantics, we are arguing reality.

Iraq war = 113,000 dead iraqis

Afghanistan war = 30,000 deaths.

Drone strikes since 2001 = 2,000 deaths


it doesnt matter how much you debate a war and discuss it in congress, the death toll will still be higher than drone strike.

You are so naive that you will say anything, so im guessing we are done here.

3. LOL at that last line, You really do believe what you just wrote, tell me, when was the last time you heard someone talk about the iraq body count ???? I cant argue with stupid.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

. RP predicted the housing collapse years before it ever happened. Guess what? They laughed at him then, too, and told him he was living in a fantasy world, that he was crazy. He warned everyone....but no one listened.

Ugh, thousands of people predicted that collapse, there are only 2 real conclusions here, it was either really obvious, or just a simple guess and even a broke clock is right twice a day.

We average 1 recession every 10 years in their country,it isnt some wild guess to simply predict one.

Maybe it's time for people like you who think that we are doing good right now to pull your heads out of that damn sand, and take a look around.

I never said we were doing good, i said we were doing better and that Ron's policies wouldnt work in the real world, if you are going to respond to me, respond to what i actually said.

The foreign policy that so many of you people hated, because you did NOT understand it, because you do NOT listen to him when someone finally shuts the hell up, stops cutting him off, and lets him talk, is not a fantasy land ideal. ..... ........

We don't have real Democrats anymore, and we don't have real Conservatives anymore. What we have in the WH, is a flippin joke. And BOTH sides, out on "Main Street", (condescending twits), have just stood there and argued that one side is more right than the other. BOTH sides suck because BOTH sides have forgotten who the hell they are, and what the hell they stand up for and support.

I always find the "both sides suck argument cute. You not liking either side doesnt mean they suck, but some substance behind what you say.

Mitt would never have been able to join people together, and "O" is just a mess he doesn't even deserve a mention. One put a dog on top of his car, one ate a dog....in the end, with everything, as with their encounters with dogs, they are the same.

I like how you just mimicked the political tug of war you claimed to hate in the above section.

It's funny...I used to think RP was crazy, too. I listened to everyone who guffawed whenever they heard his name. But then I started to listen to him. I went in, fully skeptical. I wanted to laugh at his words. I wanted to mock him. I wanted to point and laugh at his supporters. But when I actually listened to him, I realized he's the only damn one out of them all who wants to follow the Constitution. He's the only one who wants to undo this b.s. that we've had in place for decades. But hey, you go ahead and think it's fantasy. You do realize that it IS possible to UNDO crap that we were doing perfectly fine without before it got added, right? Yep, he's crazy alright....just living in his fantasy world of getting back to the Constitution. I suppose our forefathers were crazy, too, when they talked about how it was not a good idea to go over to other lands and fight. Or maybe......the crazy ones are people like you who absolutely fail to fully comprehend what that Constitution is, what it means, and why it is so important.

Again, you play the same political games you accuse others of doing, claiming everyone has left the confines of the Constitution and that only your guy can take us back.

There are so many other problems with your comment including the fact that many of your forefathers indeed saw it fit to defend liberty around the world, not just at home in the US. You seem to be confusing the doctrine of US presidents and early founders not to interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.

So in short, i fully understand the Constitution, but unlike you, i dont claim everyone else is ignorant to it just because we disagree. That is one of the bigger reason Ron Paul's speeches fade so quick,his followers like you do nothing but attack others.

Reread your post, you never once brought up a specific thing that Paul said and how he would accomplish it. You spent that entire page long comment making vague references and attacking those who disagree with you.

I would also like to point out that not once have I called Paul Crazy or even said that his ideas where bad, just that they wouldnt work in the real world.

Next time take a step back and breath before you respond.

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

You could not be more wrong about that. As for living in fantasy world...no. RP and "people like him" do not live in fantasy world. We see the reality that no one else wants to see. RP predicted the housing collapse years before it ever happened. Guess what? They laughed at him then, too, and told him he was living in a fantasy world, that he was crazy. He warned everyone....but no one listened.

Maybe it's time for people like you who think that we are doing good right now to pull your heads out of that damn sand, and take a look around.

The foreign policy that so many of you people hated, because you did NOT understand it, because you do NOT listen to him when someone finally shuts the hell up, stops cutting him off, and lets him talk, is not a fantasy land ideal. That you don't understand it shows that you are not living in reality. This country had a damn chance. Both libs and conservatives liked RP. Unfortunately, too many on the left and the right prefer to have their crap fed to them with a gigantic spoon, while mommy government wipes their dribbling chins with their bibs. BOTH sides do this. BOTH sides are full of absolute idiots. BOTH sides are the exact same. Neither side is who they once were. We don't have real Democrats anymore, and we don't have real Conservatives anymore. What we have in the WH, is a flippin joke. And BOTH sides, out on "Main Street", (condescending twits), have just stood there and argued that one side is more right than the other. BOTH sides suck because BOTH sides have forgotten who the hell they are, and what the hell they stand up for and support.

On page one, there's a post by someone talking about RP and what would have happened had he been elected. He then talks about how liberalism is dead. I'm here from the other side to say, look what would have happened if he had been elected. True conservatism is dead.

Mitt would never have been able to join people together, and "O" is just a mess he doesn't even deserve a mention. One put a dog on top of his car, one ate a dog....in the end, with everything, as with their encounters with dogs, they are the same.

It's funny...I used to think RP was crazy, too. I listened to everyone who guffawed whenever they heard his name. But then I started to listen to him. I went in, fully skeptical. I wanted to laugh at his words. I wanted to mock him. I wanted to point and laugh at his supporters. But when I actually listened to him, I realized he's the only damn one out of them all who wants to follow the Constitution. He's the only one who wants to undo this b.s. that we've had in place for decades. But hey, you go ahead and think it's fantasy. You do realize that it IS possible to UNDO crap that we were doing perfectly fine without before it got added, right? Yep, he's crazy alright....just living in his fantasy world of getting back to the Constitution. I suppose our forefathers were crazy, too, when they talked about how it was not a good idea to go over to other lands and fight. Or maybe......the crazy ones are people like you who absolutely fail to fully comprehend what that Constitution is, what it means, and why it is so important.

Good Post. I like what you said, i know a lot of people who in the beginning, shrugged RP off. Made fun of him, thought he was a kook, and a nutcase really.

Until they actually sat down and listened to what he truly has to say and what he means. I have many friends who in the beginning thought he was a lunatic really, and became a fan. Although i do not know that much of him, i can tell you this just be hearing and seeing him in action, he is a Straight Shooter, something Obama never was, and never will be!

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

1. you used intelligible wrong, because you obviousoky understood what i said, you just dont agree with it.


2. Your reasoning for saying that drones are worse is moronic. We are not arguing semantics, we are arguing reality.

Iraq war = 113,000 dead iraqis

Afghanistan war = 30,000 deaths.

Drone strikes since 2001 = 2,000 deaths


it doesnt matter how much you debate a war and discuss it in congress, the death toll will still be higher than drone strike.

You are so naive that you will say anything, so im guessing we are done here.

3. LOL at that last line, You really do believe what you just wrote, tell me, when was the last time you heard someone talk about the iraq body count ???? I cant argue with stupid.

Stupid is not understanding the consequences of military aggression or it's effect on our safety & society. It's just not as simple as body count. No one was more ardently opposed to the Iraq War, as well an extended campaign in Afghanistan. Not because of the number of troops we stood to lose but because they were morally wrong, made us less safe & convinced American that "might makes right". So too, drone strikes are morally wrong & Liberals have lost their way, sadly mutating into Progressives.

One of the real dangers of drone strikes is the hatred we generate towards our country for killing innocent people with such ease of conscious. Both the CIA & Al Queda say the reason Al Queda wants to get even with us is because we're attacking them in their countries. That's logical. Attacking them in their countries is obviously not the answer. It only contributes more money to the military industrial complex & 1'%ers. It doesn't make us any safer or do anything to help the common man.

Worse yet than the hatred we generate is that Liberals used to believe someone had to be threatening us in order to use force against them. Now, even Liberals have gleefully adopted the Bush Doctrine & defend it since it's "only" drone strikes. As if drone strikes aren't killing innocent people on a regular basis. That's a horrible development for our country. Yes, body count is decreased, but drones make it so much easier to attack people who've not threatened us & there's nothing progressive or liberal about that! the people who used to contrast the war mongers, the people who protested war & forced accountability in terms of military agression are now gung-ho for more blood so long so long as it's done in a cowardly fashion by using drones to kill people.

Glenn Greenwald, an actual Liberal on Obama's drone campaign.

A young Yemeni writer on the impact and morality of drone-bombing his country | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

[ntwrkguy1]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

The foreign policy that so many of you people hated, because you did NOT understand it, because you do NOT listen to him when someone finally shuts the hell up, stops cutting him off, and lets him talk, is not a fantasy land ideal. That you don't understand it shows that you are not living in reality. This country had a damn chance. Both libs and conservatives liked RP. Unfortunately, too many on the left and the right prefer to have their crap fed to them with a gigantic spoon, while mommy government wipes their dribbling chins with their bibs. BOTH sides do this. BOTH sides are full of absolute idiots. BOTH sides are the exact same. Neither side is who they once were. We don't have real Democrats anymore, and we don't have real Conservatives anymore. What we have in the WH, is a flippin joke. And BOTH sides, out on "Main Street", (condescending twits), have just stood there and argued that one side is more right than the other. BOTH sides suck because BOTH sides have forgotten who the hell they are, and what the hell they stand up for and support.

This is absolute money.

[adiosToreador]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

The foreign policy that so many of you people hated, because you did NOT understand it, because you do NOT listen to him when someone finally shuts the hell up, stops cutting him off, and lets him talk, is not a fantasy land ideal. That you don't understand it shows that you are not living in reality. This country had a damn chance. Both libs and conservatives liked RP. Unfortunately, too many on the left and the right prefer to have their crap fed to them with a gigantic spoon, while mommy government wipes their dribbling chins with their bibs. BOTH sides do this. BOTH sides are full of absolute idiots. BOTH sides are the exact same. Neither side is who they once were. We don't have real Democrats anymore, and we don't have real Conservatives anymore. What we have in the WH, is a flippin joke. And BOTH sides, out on "Main Street", (condescending twits), have just stood there and argued that one side is more right than the other. BOTH sides suck because BOTH sides have forgotten who the hell they are, and what the hell they stand up for and support.

Eloquently put.

[banjomike]

In the end, all this back and forth is moot. Paul is old and is retired now and out of politics for good.
And since he didn't win last year, what difference does he make now? I doubt very seriously that anyone will take up his torch and continue to push his bag of policies as a whole, but it's probable a few of them could be espoused by a wanna-be in 2016.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

Stupid is not understanding the consequences of military aggression or it's effect on our safety & society. It's just not as simple as body count. No one was more ardently opposed to the Iraq War, as well an extended campaign in Afghanistan. Not because of the number of troops we stood to lose but because they were morally wrong, made us less safe & convinced American that "might makes right". So too, drone strikes are morally wrong & Liberals have lost their way, sadly mutating into Progressives.

The problem with your argument is that I was arguing body count, if you want to make a larger argument, that is fine, but in the realm of this conversation, i was specifically talking about body count and the lives of our soldiers. So that communication error is solved.

Also, you are one of the few people on this forum who seems to realize there is a difference between Liberals and Progressives, sadly, you still dont seem to know the difference because I have yet to meet a pro drone progressive.

One of the real dangers of drone strikes is the hatred we generate towards our country for killing innocent people with such ease of conscious. Both the CIA & Al Queda say the reason Al Queda wants to get even with us is because we're attacking them in their countries. That's logical. Attacking them in their countries is obviously not the answer. It only contributes more money to the military industrial complex & 1'%ers. It doesn't make us any safer or do anything to help the common man.

I honestly dont understand your comment , are you saying we should wait for them to attack us first ????

i have also never seen the CIA say that the reason al-Queda wants to get even is because of Drones, Al-queda existed and carried out plots long before we started droning them, at best it is a contributing factor that we can now get to them, but that has to do with getting to them, not the method to which we do it.

Worse yet than the hatred we generate is that Liberals used to believe someone had to be threatening us in order to use force against them. Now, even Liberals have gleefully adopted the Bush Doctrine & defend it since it's "only" drone strikes. As if drone strikes aren't killing innocent people on a regular basis. That's a horrible development for our country. Yes, body count is decreased, but drones make it so much easier to attack people who've not threatened us & there's nothing progressive or liberal about that! the people who used to contrast the war mongers, the people who protested war & forced accountability in terms of military agression are now gung-ho for more blood so long so long as it's done in a cowardly fashion by using drones to kill people.

if you are planning attacks on U.S. Bases around the world then you are indeed threatening us.

I also never once said it was "just drone strikes" and have yet to meet anyone who did. Lets stop with the generalizations, because it is distorting your argument.

you keep using that word cowardly as if it some how strengthens your argument. Do you not see it as cowardly to invade a country and kill 1% of its population, civilians who had nothing to do with what happened ????

you are saying it is somehow more cowardly to kill 5 people with a drone than drop a bomb on an entire building from 5,000 feet or shoot a missile from a ship 2 miles away that kills 1,000 on one strike.

This is probably the biggest flaw in the drone argument, there are other long range weapons that this government use that do far more collateral damage and you dont mention it at all, to me, it would seem you would be more pissed about the other 2 scenarios i mentioned.

Glenn Greenwald, an actual Liberal on Obama's drone campaign.

A young Yemeni writer on the impact and morality of drone-bombing his country | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Ugh, i dont know Greenwald enough to say he is a liberal, but his views do not influence mine. Know one ever said all people of a specific political ideology ever had to agree with one another on everything.

as for my last comment you responded to , me calling you stupid was a little harsh, but what you wrote did come off a little ditzy.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by adiosToreador

The inverse can apply here: Unless you can show it's the truth, how can you claim it's the truth?

Politicians lie. No avoiding it.

Provide one.

[adiosToreador]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Provide one.

Ever see a politician's mouth move or hear them speak? If you must have a current example of a politician lying then look at Barack Obama. He promised to close GitMo, yet it's still opened. He claimed Americans can keep their health insurance policy, yet thousands of cancellations have occurred. He claims to have ended the war in the Middle East and drawn our troops home yet fails to mention it falls in line with President Bush's timeline.

Politicians lie, it's common fact. Therefore it's logical to conclude that at some point in his political career, Ron Paul has lied. I mean sure if you listen to what he says and buy it, then it sounds more and more like the truth.

My statement still stands - Politicians lie.