The Ron Paul Blimp
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You guys need to pick your battles. Still can't discuss the foreign policy in detail, eh? Ho hum.
Yep, Ron Paul got a whopping $500 THAT HE DID NOT SOLICIT from a Nazi sympathizer. Whoo-ee. I guess that makes him a Nazi.
Sure, I don't like it. But if that's the worst you can find worthy to start a thread, I'm not impressed.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton got $850,000 in donations from a Chicom indicted felon, and she DID solicit those donations. Wonder what that makes her.
In light of all this information, I think we should elect Giuliani, R-NY. That way we can say the Republicans "won," and the statists will still be in charge.
Oh, and the photo in your initial post was a smear that only a hack would use. Your subsequent post did not compensate. You are trying to conflate a $500 donation (out of $12 million) with the guy being a major supporter, which he isn't. Very pathetic attempt on your part. Moreover, you said contributions when it was only one contribution. Get your facts straight when you hackishly smear someone.
Yep, Ron Paul got a whopping $500 THAT HE DID NOT SOLICIT from a Nazi sympathizer. Whoo-ee. I guess that makes him a Nazi.
Sure, I don't like it. But if that's the worst you can find worthy to start a thread, I'm not impressed.On the other hand, Hillary Clinton got $850,000 in donations from a Chicom indicted felon, and she DID solicit those donations. Wonder what that makes her.
In light of all this information, I think we should elect Giuliani, R-NY. That way we can say the Republicans "won," and the statists will still be in charge.
Oh, and the photo in your initial post was a smear that only a hack would use. Your subsequent post did not compensate. You are trying to conflate a $500 donation (out of $12 million) with the guy being a major supporter, which he isn't. Very pathetic attempt on your part. Moreover, you said contributions when it was only one contribution. Get your facts straight when you hackishly smear someone.
You guys need to pick your battles. Still can't discuss the foreign policy in detail, eh? Ho hum.
Yep, Ron Paul got a whopping $500 THAT HE DID NOT SOLICIT from a Nazi sympathizer. Whoo-ee. I guess that makes him a Nazi.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton got $850,000 in donations from a Chicom indicted felon, and she DID solicit those donations. Wonder what that makes her.
In light of all this information, I think we should elect Giuliani, R-NY. That way we can say the Republicans "won," and the statists will still be in charge.
Oh, and the photo in your initial post was a smear that only a hack would use. Your subsequent post did not compensate. You are trying to conflate a $500 donation (out of $12 million) with the guy being a major supporter, which he isn't. Very pathetic attempt on your part. Moreover, you said contributions when it was only one contribution. Get your facts straight when you hackishly smear someone.
Fossten, you're acting like a pathetic, over sensitive, whiny, tool.
Note, the blimp was purchased by some supporters, so, it's still a smile-worthy joke.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Note that a smearing, ignorant, fearmongering, immature hack just called me a tool. Now that's funny. Bet you still can't settle on a candidate, eh? Oh well, doesn't matter, your vote doesn't count anyway. And that makes YOU a tool.
By the way, Ron Paul will be on Glenn Beck Tuesday night. Don't cower in fear and "forget" to watch it. I'm sure Glenn will grill him so hard...eh. Now's your chance to see Ron Paul in all his nuttiness getting exposed by Beck. Wouldn't miss it.
Oh, and his fundraising for this quarter JUST WENT OVER $17 MILLION.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
It's simple, stop being an oversensitive jerk. One can't make an obviously joking post about your darling, unelectable lunatic candidate of choice without you taking it as a personal attack on yourself.
I post a gag about Ron Paul, you respond with a lengthy, whiny rant along with a couple nasty shots at me. Then I tell you to stop being an oversensitive tool, you responding by launching yet another indignant, hyper-sensitive tantrum.
The Ron Paul money bombs are interesting, but they have no significance. He embraces some good political concepts, but after that he's relatively unstable and his foreign policy would be disastrous.
I'll watch the Beck interview, I like his show, I also look forward to seeing Beck pin Paul against the wall, as is the case ANYTIME he's interviewed by someone with a shred of common sense and understanding of foreign policy.
By the way, how does my vote not count? I'm in a state with large electoral count, and we have the primary on January 29. That means it's only behind the Iowa and Nevada caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, and on the same day as South Carolina's Democratic primary. It precedes Super Tuesday by a week. By why focus on another one of you reactionary, foolish statements.... Is this what all this is about? Being in Kentucky, you don't think you have enough input in the nomination process so you're going to waste your vote on a lunatic like Ron Paul to spite the world? Why not just support the best candidate, with a chance of being effective if elected, of the group instead?
Let's address what we all agree on.
Paul won't be nominated.
So, what is it exactly you're hoping to do by so vigorously supporting him along with those other mouth breathing supporters hanging garbage from bridges and littering the landscape with crappy signs?
I realize, he does embrace your crazy views regarding jack-booted federal agents killing kitties and all, but since you KNOW he won't be elected- and even you know his foreign policy would be disastrous and dangerous, what's your point?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
We all know what is going to happen to the Ron Paul Hindenberg. Same as his campaign.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You guys better get on the stick. Bryan, it's time for you to kick in another 50 bucks to another candidate so you can counter the $6 million raised since yesterday morning. :lol:
As far as Beck pinning Ron Paul to the wall - care to make a wager on that? He went all softy on Huck over immigration.
Oversensitive, lengthy rant? You are an idiot, Calabrio. Your rant was twice as long as mine and five times as whiny.
"B-O-O H-O-O."
-- John Bender, The Breakfast Club
As far as Beck pinning Ron Paul to the wall - care to make a wager on that? He went all softy on Huck over immigration.
Oversensitive, lengthy rant? You are an idiot, Calabrio. Your rant was twice as long as mine and five times as whiny.
"B-O-O H-O-O."
-- John Bender, The Breakfast Club
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I'd personally rather donate the money to a good masseuse down there that provides a happy ending
shifty: ) so you can relax a bit.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
What do you think of this piece that he wrote Friday?
Oooops. Darn, it's all our fault again. We just need to be nice to other peoples and then they'll like us.
Still doing it. Yet another tantrum from the kook in the corner with emotional problems, better known as Fossten. Interesting to see your a fan of John Hughes movies, perhaps you'll provide some more silly quotes from Pretty In Pink or Sweet Sixteen in the next thread.
Any time you'd like to defend Paul, you go right ahead.
Explain how his foreign policy would be a good idea.
Or explain why his foreign policy positions aren't important enough to dissuade realistic people from voting for him.
Explain how he isn't a nasty, unappealing candidate.
Explain, debate, convince, or teach something... anything
Rather than you're simple name calling, tantrums, and back-pedaling.
Or maybe you're time would be better served writing RON PAUL '08 on the side of your car in shoe polish... that's a popular campaign strategy amongst the Paulestinians. That or they put a new bumper sticker over the old Nader, Larousse, or David Duke stickers that were already on there.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Better than any Dem candidate but far from my 1st choice.MonsterMark said:
Like I said, Huck has a lot of baggage. I mentioned that a while ago if you were paying attention.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
(Ignores silly name calling flame baiting rant by the Moderator)
Well, let's see....
He's against big government, he's pro 2nd Amendment, anti income tax, anti Federal Reserve, anti pretty much any intrusive government agency that we have. He doesn't just believe or say he believes those things - he's actually behaved that way in Congress. He'd work a lot harder than Bush has at keeping Federal agencies from usurping power, for example the BATFE. He practices what he preaches, he doesn't flip flop (like Huck McRomniani does), he votes strictly by the Constitution, and he's a lock to veto pretty much any stupid spending bill the Congress puts out. I can't think of any other candidate who is as serious about shrinking the size of government. Not a single one.
I also noticed that you are, in your usual cowardly fashion, avoiding having to defend your candidate because, simply, you haven't chosen one. That is an omission of convenience and it's pathetic on your part. Your vacillation and your inability to analyze the candidates in any way at all, while spending all your energy attacking me, demonstrates a childish, mental disfunction on your part. We've had half a dozen debates already. You can't even discuss any of the other candidates. The only reason you comment on Ron Paul is to spout off in a knee-jerk fashion.
Practice what you preach: teach, debate, convince. So far you've done none of that. Don't make stupid, false ad hominem attacks. The best you've come up with in all your lengthy, sill rants is that Ron Paul isn't qualified to be President because he's a legislator. You are a pretty sad excuse for a conservative.
EDIT: I'm going to highlight everything I said about Fossten to contrast it to the statements about Paul.
Fossten, you continue to think that your ridiculously hostile attacks in someway excuse you're inability to answer a direct challenge.
Ron Paul being a horrible candidate for the President has nothing to do with who I chose to support for the Presidency. My decision in no way makes Ron Paul any less a lunatic.
You've chosen to ignore my question.
I'll ask it again.
Explain how his foreign policy would be a good idea.
Or explain why his foreign policy positions aren't important enough to dissuade realistic people from voting for him.
Explain how he isn't a nasty, unappealing candidate.
You've stated some of the appealing qualities, but you conveniently left out all of his crazy, nasty, and unappealing qualities. You never addressed his completely mindless foreign policy, his blame America first views, his notoriously nasty attitude, his tendency to yell with a high pitched shrill when having difficulty making a point. His desire to legalize all drugs. His interest in abolishing the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.
He's been a kook for 20 years now. He's run for the President in the past.
Now, in an era of emerging Superpowers, global Islamic terror, a cyclical economic slow down, and all the other emerging threats, you want to vote for this freak-show as President?
We're talking about the President. How can you seriously consider voting for a President with such disastrously misguided foreign policy? We're not talking about a single voice in a room of 435 anymore.
Convince me.
What you fail to note is that I entertained the idea of supporting him. Briefly.
And I've repeatedly addressed Ron Paul's problems- always first emphasizing his ignorant foreign policy. You seemed to have missed that, but I understand, you were busy thinking of a reasons to avoid answering a challenge posed to you.
Of course, you can continue scream revolution, visit the lunatic websites, and tell everyone about how the federal government "stomps kitties to death out of meanness." I just don't think it's very rational or effective.
Fossten, you continue to think that your ridiculously hostile attacks in someway excuse you're inability to answer a direct challenge.
Ron Paul being a horrible candidate for the President has nothing to do with who I chose to support for the Presidency. My decision in no way makes Ron Paul any less a lunatic.
You've chosen to ignore my question.
I'll ask it again.
Explain how his foreign policy would be a good idea.
Or explain why his foreign policy positions aren't important enough to dissuade realistic people from voting for him.
Explain how he isn't a nasty, unappealing candidate.
You've stated some of the appealing qualities, but you conveniently left out all of his crazy, nasty, and unappealing qualities. You never addressed his completely mindless foreign policy, his blame America first views, his notoriously nasty attitude, his tendency to yell with a high pitched shrill when having difficulty making a point. His desire to legalize all drugs. His interest in abolishing the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.
He's been a kook for 20 years now. He's run for the President in the past.
Now, in an era of emerging Superpowers, global Islamic terror, a cyclical economic slow down, and all the other emerging threats, you want to vote for this freak-show as President?
We're talking about the President. How can you seriously consider voting for a President with such disastrously misguided foreign policy? We're not talking about a single voice in a room of 435 anymore.
Convince me.
What you fail to note is that I entertained the idea of supporting him. Briefly.
Actually, I do. Despite my repeated attempts to engage you civilly, you personally all statements that you don't agree with and respond with the viciousness of a rapid Chihuahua on crack.
And I've repeatedly addressed Ron Paul's problems- always first emphasizing his ignorant foreign policy. You seemed to have missed that, but I understand, you were busy thinking of a reasons to avoid answering a challenge posed to you.
....Actually, if the movement stands a chance, it'll be through the work of thoughtful and calm people like me, who can communicate and debate effectively with people I don't agree with. That's a little technique you might want to look into.
Of course, you can continue scream revolution, visit the lunatic websites, and tell everyone about how the federal government "stomps kitties to death out of meanness." I just don't think it's very rational or effective.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This is what I get when I answer your question about Ron Paul - I get insulted. It's no wonder nobody ever listens to you.
Calabrio, rather than engaging in continuous insults and pissing contests, why don't you debate the content of your dispute with Ron Paul's foreign policy instead? And saying it's stupid or dangerous isn't a debate. Explain WHY it's wrong.
You aren't making your case by continuing to sprinkle in your ad hominem attacks. You're supposed to be the masterdebator, so why don't you wait until after the Glenn Beck show tonight, and then we'll discuss it? I'll bet you can't keep from calling either Ron Paul or me a name.
Here's a hint for you, since you seem to need a little help in debating: After you've finished your rant, read it over and delete everything that's a personal attack. Then see how much substance you have left. That should tell you whether or not you're doing a good job of debating.
Calabrio, rather than engaging in continuous insults and pissing contests, why don't you debate the content of your dispute with Ron Paul's foreign policy instead? And saying it's stupid or dangerous isn't a debate. Explain WHY it's wrong.
You aren't making your case by continuing to sprinkle in your ad hominem attacks. You're supposed to be the masterdebator, so why don't you wait until after the Glenn Beck show tonight, and then we'll discuss it? I'll bet you can't keep from calling either Ron Paul or me a name.
Here's a hint for you, since you seem to need a little help in debating: After you've finished your rant, read it over and delete everything that's a personal attack. Then see how much substance you have left. That should tell you whether or not you're doing a good job of debating.
No, only you refuse to listen, that's because it's easier than answering any challenges or explaining your position. You haven't answered my question about Ron Paul. You made a very flattering statement regarding Paul, but it didn't address my question.
Now I'll ask you a third time.
We were all in agreement that his foreign policy is his glaring weakness. I HAVE addressed it in the past and it went unchallenged. Are you now stating that his foreign policy is wise? Do you support his foreign policy positions?
If you don't- then I ask you how you're comfortable overlooking it when considering a Presidential candidate.
If you do, I ask what about it makes you think it'll make America safer or stronger.
I don't need to argue a position we're all in agreement on just because you're too lazy to defend your indefensible or illogical position. And, here's another good idea, answer my question without making me the topic of your response.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Incorrect. The only thing you've ever said is that it's dangerous, kooky, => insert ad hominem attack on policy here <=.
Haven't seen a single statement of substance from you on this. I guess we'll have to keep waiting.
So much for your "teaching ability." All you do is talk about it; you don't actually do it.
Not impressed, MAN WITHOUT A CANDIDATE.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You forgot these:
You are not calm and thoughtful, you are petulant and childish. You cannot control yourself and you need anger management. You are undeserving of being a moderator. You do not earn my respect, only derision and contempt.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Would someone please spell out as to why (direct reasons) Ron Paul's foreign policy would either be a positive or negative; not say say "it's good" or "it's bad"?
In short, Ron Paul wants to do away with the notion of the United States being a super power. He is operating under the impression that if we were to simply retreat behind our borders, the world would not only be a better place, but we'd be more secure as a result of this.
And what you'll see is another demonstration of a man who believes and embraces a reasonable philosophy but doesn't understand that it doesn't apply to reality. You CAN'T simply do a 180 degree change in American foreign policy without disasterous consequences.
But he's just a legislator, a guy with no executive experience, a man who can safely make "Principled" votes from the back of a the House of Representatives. But it doesn't work when he's actually in charge of something.
He thinks that since India and Pakistan have been allowed to obtain nukes, we should permit Iran to obtain them as well. He thinks Iran should be permitted to have nuclear weapons as well.
He voted against the 2006 Iran Freedom Support Act.
Just last April, Paul was attacking "neo-cons" for trying to drum up support" for an attack on Iran. He even said that Iran “is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain.” He dismisses all the evidence against Iran as “propaganda,” saying that “Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA.” He thinks we should just leave them alone.
He opposed the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in 2002.
He cosponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which, if it had passed (had it even been voted on), would have stopped the troop surge in Iraq and begun redeployment of troops by May 1, 2007.
He's against the military operations in Afghanistan.
He thinks Guantanamo Bay should be closed immediately, and he considers it grossly unconstitutional.
He doesn't support the Patriot Act and he voted against the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006.
Paul spoke out against a July 2006 House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and supporting the right of Israel to defend itself.
He has opposed all sanctions against North Korea.
The list goes on and on. And what you have is a guy who's applying a sound philosophy to an imperfect world.
Last edited by a moderator:
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I can describe Ron Paul's Presidential shortcoming in one word: ISOLATIONALIST.
He wants to leave it up to the world to police itself with the help of the United Nations.
He wants to leave it up to the world to police itself with the help of the United Nations.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I do have a question, why is it so horrible for the world to police itself? Yeah, I think they'll be countries who will invade other weaker countries, but why is it America's duty to step in and say "no"?
Would it be so terrible if America only looked out for itself and her allies (when threatened) and vice-versa?
That's a simple question with a very complicated answer.
In short, it's not horrible to allow the world to "police" itself. And for the most part, we do. Unless the threat posses a threat to our security or critical interests. It's better to address potential threats when they are small and before they reach our shores.
But Paul isn't for reducing our engagement, or limiting it. He want to withdraw behind our borders immediately. He's a blame-America type guy, so he honestly thinks that the threats and hostility around the world won't follow us home.
RRocket
Well-Known LVC Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0