Armed Polite Society
December 04, 2020, 02:53:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: I'm voting for Ron Paul  (Read 19684 times)
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2007, 02:46:27 PM »

.
Report to moderator   Logged
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2007, 03:31:56 PM »

Yeah yeah, vote for Ron Paul.  Even though he's shrill and whiney.  Even though his message falls somewhere between asinine and absurd.  Even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  Even though he'd make a terrible President.

At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?

Might as well stay home and masturbate.  That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.


This is the kind of arrogance that cost the Republicans both Houses of Congress in 2006, and will likely cost Republicans the Whitehouse in 2008.   Every day the Bush Administration remains in office the Republican party loses more support.

Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2007, 03:52:31 PM »

I wouldn't call saying "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war" delusional.  There's some evidence to support that conclusion.

Do you live here? No?

Well, funny thing...I do! And I talk to people, and see people, and overhear people! Wow! I live here, I think I know better than you what's going on here!
Report to moderator   Logged
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2007, 05:17:05 PM »

Quote
I live here, I think I know better than you what's going on here!

Yes, I'm sure you do.  However, elections are determined by how people vote, not by who people Manedwolf has talked to or how many pro-troop bumper stickers you see.

Look, you called Ron Paul delusional for suggesting that New Hampshire has a significant number of anti-war people in it.  I pointed out that both of your current reps in congress are against the Iraq war in its current incarnation.  You could have contested that point of data a number of ways.  The simplest would have been to downplay the importance of the Iraq war in NH politics.  That would have forced me off on a hunt to find pre-election press releases, or stories, on the candidates elected in 2006, showing that they were wearing the anti-war badge with honor.

Ron Paul is not delusional in thinking that his anti-war stance might gather him support in New Hampshire.
Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2007, 05:43:02 PM »

I don't think I need proof to show that Ron Paul is delusional on most topics. He does that himself every time he starts his high-pitched shouting, and gets boos from the audience.
Report to moderator   Logged
LAK
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 915


« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2007, 11:47:03 PM »

Quote
If you think it pained them to acknowledge that, think again.  Anything that indicates public (especially conservative) disapproval of the Iraq war is gold to the media.
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years; the media that you refer to is owned, operated, and a tool of the international oligarchy of which I speak. One of the primary means of controlling large populations is called divide and conquer. Very old hat political psychology. The Hegelian dialectic; thesis versus antithesis - for controlled change.

If you think that those who run CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the AP, NYT, LA Times etc are somehow opposed in ideology and agenda to those that run the WH - think again.

---------------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Report to moderator   Logged
vernal45
friend
Member
***
Posts: 176


« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2007, 11:55:33 PM »

The Debates last night were very telling about Mr. Paul.  And a prime example why he wont get the nod or the big chair. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2007, 12:04:23 AM »

Quote
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years; the media that you refer to is owned, operated, and a tool of the international oligarchy of which I speak.

Freemasons! Zionists! ILLUMINATI! *foam* *drool* ...  grin
Report to moderator   Logged
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2007, 04:54:30 AM »

They probably do not consider themselves any of the above. However, they do exist, in a more or less organized conglomerate. Notice that since the quantum leap in communications in the 19th c., there has been essentially a single empire or a system of like-minded empires being tasked with policing the world to ensure the security of international business.

The British naturally became that policeman in the 19th c. due to their uncontested naval hegemony and their large system of colonies and semi-dependent state. The French helped as well, in Africa and South East Asia. To a much lesser extent, so did the Dutch and even the US (barbary pirates, later the Phillipines).

Notice that the Germans got smacked down WHEN they built a modern navy to contest the world policeman. But WW1 bled the policeman dry of money, people, and political will, setting it up for the knockout blow in WW2. So, a new policeman was necessary and the US was made to step in.

Now we are being forced to repeat the calculated mistakes of the British, bleeding ourselves dry while providing world policing from which we extract disproportionately less advantage. The obvious conclusion is that our gov is being manipulated by conscious or unwitting moles, to do the bidding of international forces who care little about our own well-being or security as a country.

In this new century, I would not be surprised if China takes over as the world policeman. Alternatively, unrestricted immigration in the US can prop us as the policeman for a few more decades, until the UN wankers finish building their global government.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,897


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2007, 09:11:52 AM »

Quote
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years


Well, that's nice.  Join the club. 

None of your last post explains why it would so pain the media to report on the popularity of Ron Paul.  They showed no such qualms about a conservative, pro-war Democrat named Jack Murtha, when he began denouncing the Iraq war in very strong terms.  As I said, whatever their true goals may be, the media has a good track record for celebrating opposition to the Iraq war.  Ron Paul is a welcome development. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
Finch
Member
*
Posts: 465


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2007, 01:07:52 PM »

The Debates last night were very telling about Mr. Paul.  And a prime example why he wont get the nod or the big chair. 

Oh, you mean the one in Florida where you had to apply to get tickets to the debate by filling out a political survey that measured your approval for the war in Iraq and Bush's moronic foreign policies and were then subsequently approved or denied based on those answers?

Nah, the audience wasn't rigged at all...  rolleyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul
Headless Thompson Gunner
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,517


« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2007, 01:41:10 PM »

The Debates last night were very telling about Mr. Paul.  And a prime example why he wont get the nod or the big chair. 

Oh, you mean the one in Florida where you had to apply to get tickets to the debate by filling out a political survey that measured your approval for the war in Iraq and Bush's moronic foreign policies and were then subsequently approved or denied based on those answers?

Nah, the audience wasn't rigged at all...  rolleyes
So what?

Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates?  They won't even let Fox News into their debates.  Not that it matters, particularly. 

If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences.  It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently.  There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
Report to moderator   Logged
LAK
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 915


« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2007, 11:01:58 PM »

Fistful,

I know; like their track record of reporting the invasion. Like the shots of Baghdad square during the toppling of Saddam's stature .. the cheering, thronging "crowd" .... that barely occupied enough ground to make any "positive" filming possible at all.

Like Chalabi's hired thugs "thronging" the streets of Baghdad, tearing up posters and other trappings .. the "V" signs .. the cheering and chanting .. as if even a fraction of the population of Baghdad was overjoyed at their "liberation" and "filled the streets".

How very co-operative of them. I suppose the "pro-war republicans" made some kind of "deal" with them; just for a day, maybe? Or; "it was a big mistake" on their part?

Divide and conquer.

Say; did someone mention secret societies? Oh yes.

And as a matter of fact so did George W Bush; the one he stated is, "so secret [he] can't talk about it". The one that his "arch ideological enemy" and "opposing candidate" and fraternal brother John Kerry responded about in like manner.

John F Kennedy spoke of secret societies as well. read;

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

Or watch and listen;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR1yXR2E_M8

So a president  - or candidate - can be a member of a secret society today, speak of it, and nonchalantly brush off any further explanation. And not surprizing that certain core economic, political and related agendas at home and overseas march on regardless of which "party" is in office.
Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2007, 12:03:32 AM »

Quote
And as a matter of fact so did George W Bush; the one he stated is, "so secret [he] can't talk about it". The one that his "arch ideological enemy" and "opposing candidate" and fraternal brother John Kerry responded about in like manner.

You mean a fraternity for dorky rich kids at Yale?  rolleyes tinfoil alert, tinfoil alert!
Report to moderator   Logged
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2007, 07:41:33 AM »

Quote
So what?

Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates?  They won't even let Fox News into their debates.  Not that it matters, particularly.

If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences.  It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently.  There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.

In typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Bushbot fashion, you didn't address the issue-that the audience was screened to include only pro-war, anti Paul bias.  Instead, you introduced a complete red herring with a tirade about 'leftiists'.  Nobody (except the above captioned L/H/B's) are buying this nonsense anymore.  If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to come up with something substantive.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,897


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2007, 08:55:59 AM »

Wait a minute.  Did Riley just tell HTG how to be taken seriously?  Seriously?  LOL funny! 


LAK, none of that is relevant to my point, either.  The media spends a lot of time reporting on anti-war stalwarts like Sheehan, Murtha, etc.  This is not controversial or deniable.  So why would they be reluctant to acknowledge that Paul has a following? 


If the media is such a tool of the globalists, why would they even report on Paul, anyway?  You say they had to admit it.  Why? 
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2007, 09:05:13 AM »

Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.  smiley 

The only tangible indication of "anti-Paul" bias would be opposition to positions [he espouses] as indicated by a survey response.  Without getting into an argument over where the Republican party should be, I think it evident that Paul is more ideologically aligned with the Libertarian party.  Clearly, he has a different stance on issues than the organizers of the Orlando debate (and a good deal of the Republican party, I might add).  Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive. 

Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction.  Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second.  Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.  More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence.  Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO.  I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not).  I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Headless Thompson Gunner
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,517


« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2007, 10:59:40 AM »

Quote
So what?

Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates?  They won't even let Fox News into their debates.  Not that it matters, particularly.

If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences.  It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently.  There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.

In typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Bushbot fashion, you didn't address the issue-that the audience was screened to include only pro-war, anti Paul bias.  Instead, you introduced a complete red herring with a tirade about 'leftiists'.  Nobody (except the above captioned L/H/B's) are buying this nonsense anymore.  If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to come up with something substantive.
I did address it directly.  I said that screening the audience was a good idea.  I said it was something that both parties do, as they should.  I listed a one specific reason (out of many) why it's a good idea.  I said, in several different ways, that it just doesn't matter.

The bottom line is that there's nothing improper about the Republican Party screening the audience at a Republican Party debate based on Republican Party ideals. 

Whine about it all you like, see if anyone cares.
Report to moderator   Logged
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2007, 11:02:24 AM »

Ron Paul's performance in these televised events are certainly painful to watch at times, but they aren't debates.  They're just offering the candidates 30 second to 2 minutes spots in which to spout off on anything remotely resembling the topic at hand.

Take for instance Thompson calling Guiliani out on his record on federally funded abortion and gun control.  Guiliani didn't use the words abortion or gun control in his response.  In a proper format the moderator would force him to answer the topic at hand, but they're not doing that.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,897


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2007, 11:23:41 AM »

Gigabu, I agree.  But I don't think a real debate is a reasonable goal, given the number of participants and the time constraints.  And given that the networks are trying to make some cash on the deal.  An actual debate would get miserable ratings. 

Maybe you agree with all of that; I couldn't tell from your post. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
Euclidean
friend
Member
***
Posts: 293


« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2007, 11:50:01 AM »

And I urge all of you to do the same.  Anyone who pledges to get rid of the income tax, abolish the IRS and do away with SS has my vote.   Not that it will make any diff here in CA, the Dem will still get the electoral votes.

If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat.  Either way is not acceptable IMO.

Let's do something different this time.  Your vote does count.   Use it wisely.

Riles and I agree on a presidential candidate.  Hell has officially frozen over.

Oh, and let's see some of the comments.

Paul is the Republicans' counterpart to Kucinich.

Kucinich is not a pro RKBA candidate, has a completely different approach to abortion (he claims to support abortion but really wants the state to be able to make the decision for you), argues for more environmental regulations, amnesty for illegals, and other stances which could not be further from Ron Paul's talking points.

The merits of these issues or ideas is another thing entirely, but it suffices to say "counterpart" implies either that Kucinich is the evil Ron Paul doppelganger (probably what Manedwolf actually meant), or that they both share these views and one just happens to be a Republican and the other a Democrat.  I'm sure it's the former and not the latter but I sincerely challenge that statement if that is not the case.

Like Ron Paul or hate him.  Agree with him or not.  He will not win, or even come close.  A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats.  Plain and simple.  Its your vote, just dont want to hear you bitch about Hillary in the white house.  

This is true because you say so then?

So the implication is voting for Paul means I am helping Hilldog.  Let's see, if I vote for Paul and not Clinton, that's one for Paul, none for Clinton.  Yeah, I don't follow the logic here.

And honestly, I'm hoping to send a message to the Republicans.  The Democrats are a lost cause at this point.

Functionally, Ron Paul corresponds to Ralf Nader.

No, one's trying to run on the ticket of one of the only two socially acceptable political parties and the other is not.

If Ron ends up putting Hillary in the white house, so be it.

Might be the GOP could start courting the voters that Ron is gathering up.

For too many years we have been voting against people. IE keeping dems out of the white house.  

I think its time to actually vote for someone.

An excellent point.  Just as the American Socialist party never actually won a presidential election and yet managed to get everything they wanted, that's exactly how advocates of limited government have to proceed.

Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!

Being the proud parent of a Marine and your stance on the war have exactly nothing to do with each other.

Yeah yeah, vote for Ron Paul.  Even though he's shrill and whiney.  Even though his message falls somewhere between asinine and absurd.  Even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  Even though he'd make a terrible President.

At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?

Might as well stay home and masturbate.  That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.


Let's see, an argument based on opinion, insults, with no substantive criticsm, and a vulgar reference to a sexual act to top it all off.  All that complaining about complaining, and there's not even a suggestion to an alternative course of action.

Persuasive indeed.  Such resplendent eloquence motivates me greatly to vote for Dr. Paul if these are the best arguments his critics can offer.
Report to moderator   Logged
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2007, 03:15:47 PM »

Gigabu, I agree.  But I don't think a real debate is a reasonable goal, given the number of participants and the time constraints.  And given that the networks are trying to make some cash on the deal.  An actual debate would get miserable ratings. 

Maybe you agree with all of that; I couldn't tell from your post. 

Sorry about the less-than-clear post.  Somebody was harping at me about unloading the dishwasher halfway through and I lost my train of thought. Smiley

I had a longer post in response to this, but it's kind of off from the main thread so I'll keep it short.

I think it's possible for the RNC and DNC to start running real debates, but they'd have to do it away from the network news stations, perhaps on CSPAN, PBS, or even self publication via the web.  However, they're never going to give up their 2 hour infomercials on the network news stations, so it matters not if they're actually possible.  They have no incentive to do it.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,897


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2007, 03:24:58 PM »

Additionally, the current set-up allows the candidates more wiggle-room.  Vague promises and talking points,  as opposed to making clear points and committing to specific policies.  Or something like that; I'm not quite sure how to say it.     
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2007, 04:59:39 PM »

Calling these charades "debates" is inaccurate. The candidates do not debate one another; they answer scripted questions to the host, not the other candidates. Essentially, these "debates" are collective interviews, but very inefficient and badly done. The more logical approach would be to have individual interviews, say 30 min with each candidate alone, answering the same list of basic questions pertaining each of the major challenges before the country. Such an approach would weed out the weasels pretty quickly.

On a related note, I do not see it as a good sign that the Reps have 10 candidates. This means they cannot agree on much at all, or are too determined to pursue individual ambitions. There really should only be perhaps three candidates: a RINO, a traditional conservative, and a fringer libertarian type. The first and the last would essentially be the comic relief of the debates. Then it would also become possible to have a true debate without an active host, whose job should only be to call security if the candidates resort to fisticuffs.
Report to moderator   Logged
LAK
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 915


« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2007, 11:06:35 PM »

Manedwolf,

Skull & Bones is somewhat more than some benign frat club or gathering of dorky rich kids.

Fistful
Quote
LAK, none of that is relevant to my point, either.  The media spends a lot of time reporting on anti-war stalwarts like Sheehan, Murtha, etc.  This is not controversial or deniable.  So why would they be reluctant to acknowledge that Paul has a following? 


If the media is such a tool of the globalists, why would they even report on Paul, anyway?  You say they had to admit it.  Why?
Not relevent? The "we-hate-republicans-bush-oppose-the-war" media allocated considerable time to people such as Guiliani when it came to 9/11, other issues concerning NY, and now his presidential hopes etc. They also dutifully gave much coverage to the "crimes" of Saddam Hussein, how he "lived a life of gross opulence and luxury while his people starved", pushed people into wood chippers, etc. I recall the fraudulent testimony of the Kuwaiti ambassador's dauhter before Congress that was the "final straw" running into Desert Storm; when it was uncovered as a fraud; not one major network dwelled on it for more than a trifling period of time, and many did not report it at all.

Up until recently hardly a peep has been seen or heard about Ron Paul unless it was one of their "political analysts" relegating him to the fringe or denigrating him.

I have posted, several times, a link to an online ABC news poll that flat out dropped his name from the list on the poll results page; while people like Giuliani scored miniscule ratings on that particular poll - as opposed to Ron Paul who was above eighty percent - were all listed They only rectified that after being deluged with complaints. Hardly the acts of a major media news player who would have no qualms about "anyone who opposes the war". Undeniable?

Let's talk undeniable. Flip back to the footage and shots of Baghdad square and Chalabi's hired thugs. It is undeniable that every major news peddler from CNN to the NYT only broadcast or published that footage and shots that excluded the the real truth. It could not have been any better edited to give a false impression than it was.

The media has steadfastly avoided mentioning Ron Paul if at all possible until recently. I was treated to a whole night of CNN about "some of the potential opposition to Hillary (etc) in the coming election" early this year. This same story, as CNN is fond of doing at night, was repeated every hour or less. People like Brownbeck - not considered a frontrunner from the start - had plenty of coverage all night long; Ron Paul? His name was not even mentioned once. And Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq was well-known long ago.

The reason why he is being allocated more airtime now is primarily because he has become too popular to ignore - and a great number of people have been active in calling the networks on this. Naturally they have switched gears to try and make him look as foolish as possible, with a not insignificant number of talkshow hosts etc taking pains to sideline or try and make him look as ridiculous as possible.

To read your attempt to explain away who controls the media is as absurd as trying to sustain the notion that global socialist Rupert Murdoch does not own and run FOX News.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
ankara escort ataşehir escort pendik escort şişli escort kurtköy escort ankara escort ankara escort avcılar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avcılar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort türk porno İstanbul Escort ankara escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bahçeşehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtköy Escort Demetevler Escort Ümraniye Escort Escort ankara Keciören Escort Escort Ankara Umraniye Escort Kadıköy Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtköy Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtköy Escort Escort İzmir Beylikdüzü Escort Çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort Altyazılı Porno Türkçe Altyazılı Porno Beylikdüzü Escort istanbul escort Bahçeşehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostancı Escort Anadolu Yakası Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort izmir escort Altyazılı Porno izmit escort fmovies casino siteleri yabancı dizi ankara escort PORNO buca escort Antalya escort Mersin escort Pendik Escort Tuzla Escort Kartal Escort Kurtköy Escort Beylikdüzü Escort