Ron Paul Hate From Establishment Republicans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Ron Paul Iran Policy = BS - YouTube!

???[/quote]

What an asshole. First he plays a clip of O’Rielly saying one thing then he makes up shit and acts like that is what O’Riely said.

Besides all that was on O’Rielly’ part was giving Romney some talking points to counter. [/quote]

This is what O�??�?�´Reilly said. from 11 min onward.

Nothing was taken out of context.

Also, if he said it he really did not mean it?

Come on…[/quote]

Starting at 1:25-1:31 the young douchbags guy said “In this clip he says, Oh well everybody knows that we can’t start war with Iran”. Show me where O’Rielly said “we can’t start war with Iran”?

Real talk. No one is going to start world war three with the United States of America over us dropping some bombs on Iran to take out their nuclear weapons program. No one in their right mind is going to start a war with the United States of America over that.

Think about it. Why would the Russians go to go to war over that? They ship as much oil as the Saudis. Do you think they are going to be even remotely upset let alone, want to go to war if the price they sell their oil for doubles? They aren’t going to fight for the Iranians.

The Chinese aren’t going to go to war either. Sure it’s going to hurt them to pay more for oil, but what can they do about it? Stop selling cheap shit to us? I don’t think so. Are they going to stop buying our debt so our country goes bankrupt and we can’t continue buying their cheap shit? Not going to happen. If we go bankrupt our wage structure will collapse so it becomes cheaper to make things here just as the cost of shipping across the Pacific goes up because of the price oil just doubled. They need us more than we need them.

The Pakistani’s aren’t going to fight us over it. They are Sunni. They have had border clashes with the Iranians. If we prevent Iran from going nuclear it maintains Pakistani superiority.

If the Iranians declare war on us it is the end of the Ayatollah’s reign. If they even try to retaliate through terrorism it gives us a reason to hit them back.

The bottom line is bombing Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is not going to start world war three.
[/quote]

There it is.

All you can show is that he said something else, somewhere else yet again.

Which does not make OReily irrelevant, it just shows that he was all along.

He says whatever floats his boat at that exact moment.

[/quote]

What I have shown is that the young douche bags are making fabricating quotes that O’Rielly didn’t say and then ripping on him for saying it. Why don’t you watch your own video and listen to what does and doesn’t get said.

62

[quote]Bambi wrote:
The idea of Ron Paul as president terrifies far more than the idea of Bachmann or even Perry as president considering the global repercussions, economic and military, that would happen.[/quote]

Ron Paul would be a huge mistake at this time in history. With China becoming increasingly powerful it would an irrecoverable mistake for the US to retreat from the world.

What gets me is how all the idiots who support him think we could abandon all our friends and alliances without there being negative consequences. That our friends who we will have thrown to the wolves will stay our friends and we are going to make new friends out of all our enemies who hate us.

63

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ahhh, I see the game you’re trying to play. You think you can pull a clever lil “Gotcha!” on Uncle Push so let’s scroll on back up a ways and IN CONTEXT look at Delbert Bartholomew’s post which spawned your entry into the world of “Can I Poke Push With My Bony Little Index Finger”, shall we?
[/quote]

Why do you keep bringing up scale? I never argued about the size of “upward redistribution”, only its existence.

I just want your clarification whether “upward redistribution” exists. If you don’t think it does prove where my argument was wrong or construct your own. Once that is established then you can make an argument about significance.

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think my post was thoroughly explanatory. Go read it again and then give it a little time to digest. You’ll get there eventually.[/quote]

Whole lot of writing to say “yes” without saying it. Maybe you should run for office.

67

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Ron Paul Iran Policy = BS - YouTube!

???[/quote]

What an asshole. First he plays a clip of O’Rielly saying one thing then he makes up shit and acts like that is what O’Riely said.

Besides all that was on O’Rielly’ part was giving Romney some talking points to counter. [/quote]

This is what O�??�??�?�´Reilly said. from 11 min onward.

Nothing was taken out of context.

Also, if he said it he really did not mean it?

Come on…[/quote]

Starting at 1:25-1:31 the young douchbags guy said “In this clip he says, Oh well everybody knows that we can’t start war with Iran”. Show me where O’Rielly said “we can’t start war with Iran”?

Real talk. No one is going to start world war three with the United States of America over us dropping some bombs on Iran to take out their nuclear weapons program. No one in their right mind is going to start a war with the United States of America over that.

Think about it. Why would the Russians go to go to war over that? They ship as much oil as the Saudis. Do you think they are going to be even remotely upset let alone, want to go to war if the price they sell their oil for doubles? They aren’t going to fight for the Iranians.

The Chinese aren’t going to go to war either. Sure it’s going to hurt them to pay more for oil, but what can they do about it? Stop selling cheap shit to us? I don’t think so. Are they going to stop buying our debt so our country goes bankrupt and we can’t continue buying their cheap shit? Not going to happen. If we go bankrupt our wage structure will collapse so it becomes cheaper to make things here just as the cost of shipping across the Pacific goes up because of the price oil just doubled. They need us more than we need them.

The Pakistani’s aren’t going to fight us over it. They are Sunni. They have had border clashes with the Iranians. If we prevent Iran from going nuclear it maintains Pakistani superiority.

If the Iranians declare war on us it is the end of the Ayatollah’s reign. If they even try to retaliate through terrorism it gives us a reason to hit them back.

The bottom line is bombing Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is not going to start world war three.
[/quote]

There it is.

All you can show is that he said something else, somewhere else yet again.

Which does not make OReily irrelevant, it just shows that he was all along.

He says whatever floats his boat at that exact moment.

[/quote]

What I have shown is that the young douche bags are making fabricating quotes that O’Rielly didn’t say and then ripping on him for saying it. Why don’t you watch your own video and listen to what does and doesn’t get said.
[/quote]

I did, its right there, from 11 min onward.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you support any other person that Ron Paul for prez I don’t know why you would care about Obama winning a reelection. All the other candidates besides Ron Paul are the same as Obama – in other words they are all pro-government socialists.[/quote]

Your home state girl, Bachmann, is a pro-government socialist, huh?[/quote]

Spreading empire with military is socialism. In order to do this it requires redistributing wealth.

All government is de facto socialism.

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you support any other person that Ron Paul for prez I don’t know why you would care about Obama winning a reelection. All the other candidates besides Ron Paul are the same as Obama – in other words they are all pro-government socialists.[/quote]

Your home state girl, Bachmann, is a pro-government socialist, huh?[/quote]

Spreading empire with military is socialism. In order to do this it requires redistributing wealth.

All government is de facto socialism.[/quote]

Nope, the state and imperialism existed before socialism ipso facto all government are not socialism.

70

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you support any other person that Ron Paul for prez I don’t know why you would care about Obama winning a reelection. All the other candidates besides Ron Paul are the same as Obama – in other words they are all pro-government socialists.[/quote]

Your home state girl, Bachmann, is a pro-government socialist, huh?[/quote]

Spreading empire with military is socialism. In order to do this it requires redistributing wealth.

All government is de facto socialism.[/quote]

Nope, the state and imperialism existed before socialism ipso facto all government are not
socialism. [/quote]

What does history have to do with the definition of words?

Just because someone does not have an understanding of the natural world does not mean the natural world does not exist until someone discovers it.

edit
What I am trying to say is that socialism has been the status quo since the of governments (wealth redistribution). It’s only with the advent of “social democracy” that is has sped up before our eyes. Kings, for example, never dreamed they would ever be able to get away with the schemes our overlords have.

71

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think my post was thoroughly explanatory. Go read it again and then give it a little time to digest. You’ll get there eventually.[/quote]

Whole lot of writing to say “yes” without saying it. Maybe you should run for office.[/quote]

And maybe Katie Couric is your heroine.[/quote]

You don’t understand why the assertion you made about upward redist. is fallacious, do you? I don’t think it would do any good to explain why you are wrong since you wouldn’t be able to admit it anyway.

72

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
The idea of Ron Paul as president terrifies far more than the idea of Bachmann or even Perry as president considering the global repercussions, economic and military, that would happen.[/quote]

Ron Paul would be a huge mistake at this time in history. With China becoming increasingly powerful it would an irrecoverable mistake for the US to retreat from the world.

What gets me is how all the idiots who support him think we could abandon all our friends and alliances without there being negative consequences. That our friends who we will have thrown to the wolves will stay our friends and we are going to make new friends out of all our enemies who hate us. [/quote]

What gets me is all the idiots that think our foreign aid is doing miraculous things all the time and that the entire premise may not be flawed to begin with. How’s those billions we’ve spent on Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan working out?
Here are some differing opinions on foreign aid to other countries, I guess they are all idiots huh?

http://pcsa.michaelwsherman.com/2011/08/kenyan-economist-stop-sending-aid/

http://www.globalenvision.org/2009/04/20/foreign-aid-helping-or-hurting-africa

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/1048 —oh yeah btw in this one our own Secretary of State questions the efficacy of the foreign aid system.

Who’s left, oh yeah our biggest donation recipient Israel. I wonder how some Israelis feel about it?

"Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that foreign aid may do more harm than good, and proposed efforts to wean Israel off of American military-aid payments.

The Jewish Task Force states among its principles a commitment to â??an immediate end to all U.S. foreign aid, even to a genuine friend and ally like Israel, which is harmed rather than helped by her counterproductive dependency on Americaâ??s addictive welfare handouts.â??

Hoover Institution Fellow Alvin Rabushka says that aid to Israel hurts Israelis: â??Free money is the scourge of Israelâ??s economy. It is the difference between a free, prosperous Israel and a statist, dependent Israel. Before U.S. aid began flowing, Israelâ??s economic performance rivaled that of the high-growth Asian Tigers. Since then, Israelâ??s growth rate has fallen by more than half.â??

Still think anyone that has a different opinion than yours is an idiot? Yeah, probably.

73

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]

The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.

And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]

Of course they fear him - not personally, though.

His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.

And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]

IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war. Maybe if we pillaged every contry we invaded the cost could be justified

74

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race…[/quote]

No, he isn’t - he is a radical libertarian. Conservatives have very little in common with radical libertarians.
[/quote]

Ron Paul is most assuredly a Libertarian but he is the only true conservative meaning he would want to conserve the fiscal assets America wields . The Democrats have their priorities in spending money just as the Republicans , neither of which are conservative

75

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]

The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.

And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]

Of course they fear him - not personally, though.

His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.

And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]

IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war. Maybe if we pillaged every contry we invaded the cost could be justified[/quote]

I would think that more of the anti-war folks, left or right, would be embracing Ron Paul with more enthusiasm. He is after all, probably the only true anti-war candidate of the whole lot, including our current president.

76

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only thing is, it doesn’t make sense that wealth can be distributed upwards. Think about it.[/quote]

Again true nonsense

77

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]

The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.

And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]

Of course they fear him - not personally, though.

His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.

And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]

IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war. Maybe if we pillaged every contry we invaded the cost could be justified[/quote]

I would think that more of the anti-war folks, left or right, would be embracing Ron Paul with more enthusiasm. He is after all, probably the only true anti-war candidate of the whole lot, including our current president.
[/quote]

I believe there are as many Libertarians that are Democrats that are Republican. I belive if Paul looks like he has a good chance he will draw alot of Democrats , me included

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]

The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.

And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]

Of course they fear him - not personally, though.

His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.

And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]

IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war. Maybe if we pillaged every contry we invaded the cost could be justified[/quote]

I would think that more of the anti-war folks, left or right, would be embracing Ron Paul with more enthusiasm. He is after all, probably the only true anti-war candidate of the whole lot, including our current president.
[/quote]

I believe there are as many Libertarians that are Democrats that are Republican. I belive if Paul looks like he has a good chance he will draw alot of Democrats , me included
[/quote]

Imagine that…you and I voting for the same candidate. LOL

80

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]

The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.

And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]

Of course they fear him - not personally, though.

His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.

And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]

IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war. Maybe if we pillaged every contry we invaded the cost could be justified[/quote]

I would think that more of the anti-war folks, left or right, would be embracing Ron Paul with more enthusiasm. He is after all, probably the only true anti-war candidate of the whole lot, including our current president.
[/quote]

I believe there are as many Libertarians that are Democrats that are Republican. I belive if Paul looks like he has a good chance he will draw alot of Democrats , me included
[/quote]

Imagine that…you and I voting for the same candidate. LOL
[/quote]

I am not surprised our current two party system wants you to hate the poor and my party wants me to hate you for hating the poor