11 out of top 14 posts about loser Paul...

Well then, lets go save the world again by invading Iran!!

Go gett'em Brarak, and/or Mit!!! USA, USA, USA, USA!!

BTW, had you checked out "Iraq Day" where locals are celebrating the US withdraw by burning US flags and chanting anti-US slogans?

Yep, mission accomplished.

 

Explain to me thoroughly how Obama "weakened" America. Was it when he kept spending more and more on the military and deploying more troops? How would Paul weaken our national defense? Do you even know what his national defense policies are? Do you even know what Republicans used to believe about starting wars with other nations? Seriously, you got to be like the 10th person since I have come here that I'm not sure if you are serious or not.

 

Obama has weakened our nation by bowing to the Saudi King, the Japanese were pissed when he apologized for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the list goes on including friending Hugo Chavez.

I don't care what Republican used to do. I care what conservatives are going to do. We will not be weakened period.

Seriously, whether I am the 10th or 110th person who you have come across I am dead serious about Ron Paul loosing the debate against Obama. If you want Obama to be re-elected, vote for Paul.

 

Who said anything about invading Iran? I think we pulled too many troops outof Iraq though. Did we waste billions of dollars there? Yes. Since we pulled out it was an immediate "go" for the al-Qaeda to laugh at us and escalate war there.

It's the anti war protesters who celebrated Iraq Day which I did not see but am sure they are liberals at best. What does Iraq Day have to do with Iran?

No mission will ever be accomplished but we shouldn't abandon nations that we have served in. Nato is a joke and we seem to do more than any of the nations who blow smoke and say they support destroying the taliban or jihadists or al-Queda. That's my take whether you disagree with what I believe or with what I do know.

 

So did this weaken our nation:


What about this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOnDatqENo"]Bad Sushi - YouTube[/ame]

How about this one:


My point is, had Obama done any of these things it would have simply been fuel for you. If it be, other countries customs, slip-ups or trying to hash out agreements with nations we have been uneasy with, you would excuse it in one way or another as him sleeping with the enemy. I will agree with you though, you got Republicans out there that are bat-(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy, think the entire world is out to get them and think they need to strike first before the other guy might/probably not likely/BUT could strike first, kill a couple hundred thousand innocent people, have a few thousand of our men and women die and sacrifice for a rich mans game, and in-debt us even more. The others are of course, Ron Paul supporters.

 

Who said anything about Iran? Well presumbably the US went into Iraq to stop them from getting a WMD, so why should Iran be any different?

So in Iraq at what point should the US have pulled out? Was it when the US took Baghdad or when Saddam was captured or when Saddam was hanged or when his sons were killed? When exactly was the ideal time to withdraw?

As for NATO being a joke, I don't think Gaddafi is laughing.

 

I refer to those in the first group as "abject cowards". Seriously, people! This country has prevailed over *serious* threats to our national security over the years. Hell, when I was growing up we had 30,000 nukes ready to wipe us out in less than an hour. Kinda hard to get all peeing-the-bed worked up over a few religious nuts with explosive underwear after that.
But not these people. They're all crouching in the corner and sucking their thumbs over third-rate nobodies to the point they can't even think straight.
Truly pathetic.
/ Grow a pair, wouldja?

 

Oh, glad to see that you and your ilk have pooh-poohed the 9/11 terrorist attack on America as a simple bed wetting experience. Remind us to employ you on all military and foreign afairs matters as being our future go-to expert reference. I suggest you team up with Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and the entire Democrat senate before giving us your military/foreign affairs plans for the future. Even our current sec of state Hillary has more balls and common sense than your types.

 

Why do you keep repeating a lie? He never said he couldnt win. It was a stupid question and he answered it honestly. When he puts his head down to go to sleep he doesnt dream about being in the Oval Office. Sorry he isnt an ego maniac.

 

Shhhh.... We know you're scared. It's okay. Everything's gonna be okay.

/reassuring hug and soothing lullaby

 

Pop quiz: How many airliners would have to be flown into how many skyscrapers in order to present a serious threat to the average American?

Hint: http://www.squidoo.com/oddsdying

http://funny2.com/odds.htm

People need to grow some testicles and start thinking instead of being driven by fear. Your bathtub is a bigger threat than the terrorists.

 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JIYUU .

 

Strange how the death of 3000 Americans on that fateful 9/11 day means so little to you to the point of where you have such disregard for our military and for the safety of our citizens. Being the good Christian that I am, I'll be sure to say an extra Hail Mary just for your benefit.

 

yeah genius,thanks for posting,like he said,you just made it 12.great job there helping us.

 

Hellary Clinton? the lady that is in love with a mass murderer who is behind th deaths of over a hundred people because they knew too mcu about his scandals he was involved with as governor of arkansas? the lady who loves a man who was caught lying about the events of waco when slick willie lied to the american people saying-we did not start the fire,the davidians started the fire accidently tripping over gasoline-a proven lie since our army tanks showed a flame thrower mounted on top shootinf fire onto the compound.then lies even further saying-we never fired onto teh compound,they fired at us,the vidoes once again catch him lying since they show a helicopter firing bullets form a machine gun on the compound.Great role model of lady you love.

 

"Disregard"?! I'm the one arguing on their behalf against people like you who want to send them to war on every God-forsaken rock on this planet for no good reason. Then folks like you turn around and say "Well, that's what they enlisted for".
But I suppose you have a yellow ribbon on your car, so that makes it "alright".

This ain't about the dead or the troops. This is about your blinding, mind-numbing fear that the terrorists are gonna getcha.

 

Look OP, we've been over this before, nobody cares what you think about Ron Paul. We will discuss him as we like. If you don't like it, you can always leave. This forum would be the better for it.

 

Learn to float in levity land for once in your life. Lighten your load a bit by telling us how paul is going to win the primary and then go on to kick mr. hussein's butt. That way we'll all have at least something to laugh about with another tedious paul posting. Sheeesh!!!!!!!

 

you're joking right ?

Want to talk about no child left behind, medicare part D ?

 

Some things befuddle me.

Things I have heard recently, by republicans.

• Ron Paul is "crazy."
• Ron Paul is an "isolationist." (which makes no sense BTW)
• Ron Paul is a "senile old man."
• Ron Paul is a "conspiracy theorist" who hates Israel.
• Ron Paul is "zany."

Lets examine this.

You know, historical revisionism is a wonderful political tool to both parties. It is ethically atrocious, but its political utility makes up for that in the minds of politicians. Republicans don't want to bring up the fact that we empowered and provided Osama Bin Laden weapons and money to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They don't want to remember that a large portion of the capabilities that Al Quada had leading to 9/11 were provided by the United States when it was convenient for them to be allies. It is uncomfortable to remember that we once allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein to fight against Iran. The fact that the United States provided Hussein with the technology and money to begin a weapons program (the exact same program that would be at the center of the discussion for the 2002 invasion) is something Republicans don't enjoy talking about. But to be fair, the other party is no better. While the Republicans have the monopoly on war in the last 10 years, the entire 20th century pretty much belonged to the D's when it came to mongering and propaganda. Democrats don't like to remember that the escalation of Vietnam and the Korean Quagmire was, for the most part, their doing. They don't like to remember that their beloved progressive era laid the groundwork for the era of eugenics and genocide.

The political powers that be love to forget history, and there seems to be somewhat of a unwritten pact that, "if you don't air our dirty laundry, we won't air yours.".

However, I am not sure I have ever seen people so willing to forget recent events as much as republicans in this cycle. Lets put aside the greater American history for a second and just focus on Paul's recent political history. It was Paul's supporters and the "Campaign for Liberty", coming off the 2008 campaign, that created the TEA party (it was actually a term he used during his campaign) and set up its first events. It was with Paul's support that these events became popular and attracted a following in the media. It was this movement that led to a greater discussion about the United States' fiscal policy. It was this movement that created political enthusiasm leading into 2010. It was this movement that saw the removal of several long tenured politicians that had become system leeches. And finally, it was this movement that ultimately gave Republicans the House of Representatives. All because one man's supporters didn't immediately go home and sit on their hands after the 2008 election.

And yet here we are in 2012, and republicans want to remember, in praise and triumph, their greatest political victory in 20 years. And yet, want to vigorously tear down the man that inspired the movement that made it possible. Why? Because he applies the same fundamental approach to foreign policy as domestic policy and economic policy? Because not all of his supporters are traditional conservatives? Because he brings up sensitive topics? You know, if you want to disagree with his policy positions, fine. Do so, voice your concern. But to call him a "loser" while praising the only victory Republicanism has had in recent history is mindless and pathetic. (not to mention, linking the TEA party in your signature)

Respect goes along way. Paul is getting 24% of the vote in a primary that has roughly the same turnout as 2008. The Republican candidate will lose without a large portion of Paul's supporters voting for the candidate. Those that worry about Paul perhaps costing the Republican's the election by running as a third party candidate are getting ahead of themselves. They themselves might cost the Republicans the election simply by treating Paul and his supporters exactly as they are.

 

"Republican" just means a system of government where representatives are elected by voting and then they make political decisions. Is that exactly what he supports?

By the way, both most self-proclaimed "Democrats" and "Republicans" are both republican, since most of them (both of them) want a system of government which operates in the republican way.

Leftist vs. Rightist, as well as Liberal vs. Conservative, are the two main (far better and more effective) political spectrums.

 

Uhh... No it does not "just mean that". "Republican" is also a political party. Their logo looks like this:

Ron Paul is a member of that party and a candidate for their nomination.

You might've had a point with your outmoded left/right model if this discussion had anything to do with political spectrums... but it doesn't.

 

Let's not forget that we were also once Allies with Iran....until we overthrew their government, installed the Shah, and then turned our backs on them when things there went to hell and back...

 

About 303 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001.

More than 130 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004, according to data compiled by the US State Department.

How much more valuable are our lives? Is he waving a white flag, or is he putting an end to state sponsored atrocities?

 

Kinda Looks like this these days ...