Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
FreddyH wrote:
Quote:
He doesn't have the intellect to be a small town mayor.
The intellect? What does that mean Freddy? You do know that he is a very well educated man don't you? Are you suggesting that intellect is akin to aptitude? If so then you are right but I am taking the comment as meaning that he isn't smart enough.
There are obviously many very smart people in this world who are evil bastards and for Ron Paul to espouse his ideology he must be one of them IMHO. It's just that I'm convinced that he couldn't possibly be dumbed down enough by his greed that he would understand that he would doom the bottome two-thirds of the population in that country to poverty if he had his way. Such is the ignorant crass ideology of the libertarian extremists.
Thank Dog very few people take him seriously! _________________ Many Americans believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. Therefore oil is being produced in the ground as we speak. How could there ever be a shortage considering that? God will supply all we ever need!
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Quote:
There are obviously many very smart people in this world who are evil bastards and for Ron Paul to espouse his ideology he must be one of them IMHO.
You're a real piece of work. To think that a doctor and very well-respected man like he is is evil is just simply absurd. You may not agree with all of his policies, but his policies are based on a very simple principle of the federal government getting out of our lives. It worked for quite a while and we got along decently as a country with quite rampant growth.
Quote:
that he would understand that he would doom the bottome two-thirds of the population in that country to poverty if he had his way.
You have absolutely no clue what kind of shitstorm this nation is heading towards because we are NOT on the financial and monetary policy that he sets forth, namely the gold standard and lower spending. Because those policies aren't being followed, we have very high inflation that is likely to turn into even higher inflation with staggering debts for our empire, SS and Medicare. Once our federal government goes bankrupt, the nation won't have any money so those 2/3's won't be able to be helped out at all.
Give the money back, quit spending so much and restore our dollar and then the bottom 2/3's will have more money to spend and save for themselves, rather than have it wasted on idiotic adventures like Iraq, which combined cost the American tax payer around a trillion dollars a year (~6% of GDP).
Quote:
I just don't tink it's quite 'that' bad in that country yet.
Some of us are able to see beyond the next five minutes to conclude the health of a nation. While it may not be bad now, does not mean that what's occurring now won't necessitate an awful condition in the future.
Quote:
Thank Dog very few people take him seriously!
Thank God you don't live in this nation; we have enough idiots pretending to be patriotic Americans as it is, yet they've never read the document upon which this nation was built, nor honor the men that built this nation (FF, working class and farmers). _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Joined: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
namenick wrote:
FreddyH wrote:
Quote:
He doesn't have the intellect to be a small town mayor.
The intellect? What does that mean Freddy? You do know that he is a very well educated man don't you? Are you suggesting that intellect is akin to aptitude? If so then you are right but I am taking the comment as meaning that he isn't smart enough.
Sorry, i stand corrected ... aptitude better describes my intent. Paul is medical practitioner and must be respected for the discipline that was involved in attaining his status.
But clearly he cannot answer general questions related to his new career aspirations. _________________ www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
FreddyH wrote:
namenick wrote:
FreddyH wrote:
Quote:
He doesn't have the intellect to be a small town mayor.
The intellect? What does that mean Freddy? You do know that he is a very well educated man don't you? Are you suggesting that intellect is akin to aptitude? If so then you are right but I am taking the comment as meaning that he isn't smart enough.
Sorry, i stand corrected ... aptitude better describes my intent. Paul is medical practitioner and must be respected for the discipline that was involved in attaining his status.
But clearly he cannot answer general questions related to his new career aspirations.
It wasn't my intent to correct you Freddy, just to find out what you were thinking and now I know. Intellect can certainly be aptitude and in this case it is. We both understand that he is intelligent in some ways and a complete idiot in other ways such as his supplyside nonsense and his ideas of what he will do to that country.
I took part in a supplyside forum for quite some time and I was privileged to hear just what those wackjobs really think. The forum consisted fo a covey of about a dozen of them and never grew much from that. Reaganistas and supply-my-siders is more like it with those crackpots. Eventually it got to be so painfully obvious that they were only really interested in their own wallets at the expense of all others and I ended up telling them so. They couldn't tolerate that and I got banned from their club. Nobody there says too much against them if they want to remain posting with them. It 'was' a learning experience and I check in to read their babbling once in a while still. They're heavy into Ron Paul of course but don't like to ever mention that Ron Paul is antiwar, for the most part, although one or two of them are indeed antiwar more or less. Mostly because it interferes with profit making in his opinion. The majority are heavily prowar and still support Ron Paul because they could overlook his silly ideas of being able to end their war if he would bring about a flat tax or zero taxation.
If you're into having a laugh it's worth going there and reading them for a while. You very quickly find out what they're made of and they have one village idiot who regularly spills the beans on the agenda. A real hoot. I'll leave the URL again on this forum in case anyone wants to enjoy the experience. http://supplysideforum.com/forum/index.php?sid=1e258af3f26d4cf5e42baf7dd68a7d64
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
mekrob wrote:
Quote:
You have absolutely no clue what kind of shitstorm this nation is heading towards because we are NOT on the financial and monetary policy that he sets forth, namely the gold standard and lower spending. Because those policies aren't being followed, we have very high inflation that is likely to turn into even higher inflation with staggering debts for our empire, SS and Medicare. Once our federal government goes bankrupt, the nation won't have any money so those 2/3's won't be able to be helped out at all.
Give the money back, quit spending so much and restore our dollar and then the bottom 2/3's will have more money to spend and save for themselves, rather than have it wasted on idiotic adventures like Iraq, which combined cost the American tax payer around a trillion dollars a year (~6% of GDP).
Actually I do have an idea of how much trouble your country is in but the way to fix it is certainly not anywhere your ideas. But if you understand that you need to end your wars you are at least on the right track there. The trouble is, you're taken in by Ron Paul of all people and you don't understand that he couldn't be elected to dogcatcher. You need to try to find a candidate who will end your war who is at least a possibility of winning the dubious distinction of replacing your current moron. And btw, if you are supporting Ron Paul then you probably don't even understand how your current moron got your country in that predicament to start with. So who will be your best bet as a candidate for president?
Answer: Oh I forgot, there are none. Continue wasting your time with Ron Paul.
You see Mr. mykrob expert, I'm of the opinion that your country needs to continue the war in Iraq and actually win it. Actually I think you will eventually as there is no people who will continue to fight for the right to control their own destiny indefinitely when they are being slaughtered by an occupying force. It just takes staying power and a hope that they or their supporters don't get a nuke and do N.Y. in proper style. You just might win but I'm not taking any chances so I'm staying out of the land of the gun until it's over and at least twenty years have passed to give the enemy time to cool their emotions.
As for the rest of Ron Paul's ideas? Wacko in the first degree and certifiably insane IMO. Gold standard? Get serious! I've heard it all a thousand times over and at least 5 times a day from the supply-my-siders. There's nothing going to bail your asses out of this mess except winning a bunch of oil wars.
Nice little video from Russia today by Ron Paul. He too thinks that the US needs to quit messing around with Russia. But he doesn't understand why the US needs to give the Saudis 20 billion dollars! What a goof! He still thinks the US doesn't need to buy the Saudis.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Quote:
Answer: Oh I forgot, there are none. Continue wasting your time with Ron Paul.
You make no sense. If there are no other candidates, then why is support for Paul a waste of time?
Quote:
I'm of the opinion that your country needs to continue the war in Iraq and actually win it...
Blah blah blah. More idiotic BS.
Quote:
Wacko in the first degree and certifiably insane IMO.
Any proof?
Quote:
Gold standard? Get serious! I've heard it all a thousand times over and at least 5 times a day from the supply-my-siders.
One thing I've constantly noted about you in your posts here and in other threads is that you never provide any proof for what you say. You say something like Paul is evil or has wacko and insane plans yet you never go into any discussion thereof. It makes for quite an argument when you simply say something without any proof, although it does nothing for a real debate. You simply want it to be a shouting match accusing others of being evil, hating other nations, having insane plans, etc. It just goes to show that you have absolutely no real back-up, so you intend to shout the other person down. So I've learned as much as I need to know about you to know to stay away from you.
Good day. مع سلامة _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4279 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Paul has his faults, but the alternatives don't look very good. McCain?Clinton?Huckabee?Edwards?Obama? Might as well keep Bush/Cheney in office. _________________ "Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling"
-President Bush 11/07/07
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
frankthetank wrote:
Paul has his faults, but the alternatives don't look very good. McCain?Clinton?Huckabee?Edwards?Obama? Might as well keep Bush/Cheney in office.
I couldn't agree more with the alternatives Frank and I have consistently said for about 5 years now that the US needs to consolidate control over ME oil and can't leave Iraq. In fact I was never of the opinion that the war was for any other reason. Many Americans have been deeply offended when I express my opinion on that but I think they are finally coming around to the realization that it's always been true. I've heard arguments to the effect that big oil is responsible for the war, that Cheney and company caused the war for profit, that oil is a fungible commodity and the US could get it's oil from somewhere else, and lots of weird reasons for denial. Including the standby reasons which were to save the Iraqi people, to eliminate the WMD's which some still think exist in another country or some other similar pipedream, and the ridding the world of an evil dictator. All total nonsense IMO.
It's always been about consolidating control over ME oil of course, even though some think it's to consolidate control over Iraq's cabbage crop. What's amusing is that some Americans get angry when I fail to furnish the proof. Duhhhhh!
Way back in 02 I took part in a forum where there was a person who called himself the cynic. He was uncany in getting it right literally all of the time. I don't know who he was but I sure would like to know so I could congratulate him. He said unequivocally that there would be no WMD's found in Iraq at that time and he was willing to bet a lot of money on it. I've always suspected that he knew because it was only common sense for him to understand that the US needed to go into Iraq for the oil and therefore all the other excuses were just window dressing. I've tried to copy his intuitive ways by just looking closely at the reality of the situation and it's worked at times. I think it may be more difficult for Americans though because they have something at stake and that is the fact that they will not be able to accept the guilt of their hegemony as easily as others can. Just thought I would tell that little story for anyone who wants to try to look at reality as opposed to being emotional about the whole nonsense.
But back to Ron Paul and arguments 'AGAINST' Ron Paul. The guy doesn't stand a chance and therefore it's a waste of time supporting him. Better to concentrate on exposing all the lies about pulling out of Iraq before 2050. Or when the oil runs out, whichever comes first.
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
mekrob wrote:
Quote:
One thing I've constantly noted about you in your posts here and in other threads is that you never provide any proof for what you say. You say something like Paul is evil or has wacko and insane plans yet you never go into any discussion thereof. It makes for quite an argument when you simply say something without any proof, although it does nothing for a real debate. You simply want it to be a shouting match accusing others of being evil, hating other nations, having insane plans, etc. It just goes to show that you have absolutely no real back-up, so you intend to shout the other person down. So I've learned as much as I need to know about you to know to stay away from you.
Good day. مع سلامة
You sound a little like a recording of dsula. I provide reams of information and links to back up my claims and he just keeps asking for proof, while whining about my opinions, calling me a commie, and failing to provide any evidence or 'proof' of his own to rebut my points. And you provide volumes of proof with every one of your posts don't you! Could it be that you don't like my opinion?
In any case I concur wholeheartedly with your decision to ignore me from now on.
Salaam.
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 5317 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: Hillary....the stealth Arab oil candidate
Hillary and Bill personally receive 10 million dollars per year from Arab oil interests to give them "financial advice:" Hillary is owned
Are the Arabs now investing in cattle futures...Hillary's special area of expertise?? The Clinton library and Clinton Foundation are also heavily funded by Arab oil money.
No wonder Hillary won't release her income tax statements....and whats with the media....doesn't taking millions from Arab oil countries compromise her ability to deal with those countries? Why do the media let her get away with this kind of coverup of her own financial ties to Arab oil interests? _________________ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4279 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary....the stealth Arab oil candidate
Politicians are bought... nothing ground breaking there. When she becomes elected it'll be no different then Bush/Cheney...except for the vagina Might as well have a king or queen rule this country, cause then it'll save time/effort/money from these rigged 4 year elections. _________________ "Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling"
-President Bush 11/07/07
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary....the stealth Arab oil candidate
Note it's not Hillary anymore. It's the Hillary + Bill campaign. Since losing the first primary, she changed to emphasize her husband and her votes have soared. _________________ People first, then things, then dollars.
There will be enslavement & cannibalism.
Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 6284 Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary....the stealth Arab oil candidate
heroineworshipper wrote:
Note it's not Hillary anymore. It's the Hillary + Bill campaign. Since losing the first primary, she changed to emphasize her husband and her votes have soared.
Of course. It's all about charisma. He has it, she doesn't.
Works every time. Always will. _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 5317 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary....the stealth Arab oil candidate
Zardoz wrote:
heroineworshipper wrote:
Note it's not Hillary anymore. It's the Hillary + Bill campaign. Since losing the first primary, she changed to emphasize her husband and her votes have soared.
Of course. It's all about charisma. He has it, she doesn't.
Works every time. Always will.
Good point. Its rather fun to hear Obama and his supporters sound so outraged when they complain that Bill Clinton is lying when he discusses Obama's record.
Did these people spend the 90s in a cave? Why should Obama be so surprised that Clinton is a liar?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Might as well have a king or queen rule this country, cause then it'll save time/effort/money from these rigged 4 year elections.
