[quote]SexMachine wrote:
On Iran:
‘Let’s make friends with them’[/quote]
I do have Iranian friends. So what of it?
Why are you so confused?
edit:
The funny thing is that they hate their government as much as I hate mine.
That alone should unite the American “people” with the Iranian “people”. We have lots in common.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I agree that he doesnt have a chance at the Republican nomination. Most people will marginalize him, cling to this bit that you are and somehow check their moral standing at the door and vote for a complete dbag like Gingrich or Romney, both professional politicians/schmoozers who will say ANYTHING to get the vote and based on their records will most likely do the opposite just to try and prevent Obama from re-election thinking they are doing the best thing they can to save our country all the while ensuring the continued destruction. THAT is what’s disgusting, and yes even more disgusting than 20 year old newsletters possibly maybe written by, somewhat endorsed by, kinda sorta not repudiated, etc.
But by all means feel awesome for trouncing the possibility of a Paul candidacy and vote for the jerk off you think is do justice in Washington.[/quote]
What you don’t seem to get is that Paul is just like the rest of the so-called “professional politicians” you’re whining about - it’s quite clear he used to traffic in all of these disgusting ideas, but once he committed to trying to gain a national voice, suddenly he got amnesia as to all this sordid stuff and pretends he is a different person. In other words, he’s no man of ironclad integrity sticking to his principles - he’s a liar whose story keeps changing when it suits his political opportunities. He is wise enough to know he can’t be taken seriously at the national level if he cops to ownership of these ideas, so he’s spent considerable time pretending they aren’t his, despite the obvious facts.
He’s duped you and countless others. The idea that Paul is some different kind of politician is a pathetic joke - he’s more than happy to lie and get your vote and your money.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I agree that he doesnt have a chance at the Republican nomination. Most people will marginalize him, cling to this bit that you are and somehow check their moral standing at the door and vote for a complete dbag like Gingrich or Romney, both professional politicians/schmoozers who will say ANYTHING to get the vote and based on their records will most likely do the opposite just to try and prevent Obama from re-election thinking they are doing the best thing they can to save our country all the while ensuring the continued destruction. THAT is what’s disgusting, and yes even more disgusting than 20 year old newsletters possibly maybe written by, somewhat endorsed by, kinda sorta not repudiated, etc.
But by all means feel awesome for trouncing the possibility of a Paul candidacy and vote for the jerk off you think is do justice in Washington.[/quote]
What you don’t seem to get is that Paul is just like the rest of the so-called “professional politicians” you’re whining about - it’s quite clear he used to traffic in all of these disgusting ideas, but once he committed to trying to gain a national voice, suddenly he got amnesia as to all this sordid stuff and pretends he is a different person. In other words, he’s no man of ironclad integrity sticking to his principles - he’s a liar whose story keeps changing when it suits his political opportunities. He is wise enough to know he can’t be taken seriously at the national level if he cops to ownership of these ideas, so he’s spent considerable time pretending they aren’t his, despite the obvious facts.
He’s duped you and countless others. The idea that Paul is some different kind of politician is a pathetic joke - he’s more than happy to lie and get your vote and your money.[/quote]
All this should make you feel quite good about yourself I suppose. I respect Paul for his voting record, nothing more nothing less. He hasn’t gotten any of my money and yes compared to Obama or the top two Republican candidates he would get my vote because a vote for any of the frontrunners is a waste in my opinion, business as usual. One thing Paul has integrity on and consistency is how he has voted. Lets throw up the people you voted for in the last three elections and I can point by point break down how they lied to you and went against what they ran for.
I get it, it feels smugly good to “know Paul is unelectable” and boy does it feel good to dismiss his supporters as batshit loonballs but guess what, I feel the same about my friends that supported Bush and Obama (as in “are you fucking serious voting for that guy?” I concede the point that the newsletters are disturbing and a pain point. Produce another candidate that stands for the better ideas that Paul puts out (dont yammer on about marxist isolationism, etc.) you KNOW he has some very lucid points amongst the stuff you dont like. Show me a better candidate that will defend the principles of my civil liberty and I’m all ears.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I get it, it feels smugly good to “know Paul is unelectable” and boy does it feel good to dismiss his supporters as batshit loonballs but guess what, I feel the same about my friends that supported Bush and Obama (as in “are you fucking serious voting for that guy?” I concede the point that the newsletters are disturbing and a pain point. Produce another candidate that stands for the better ideas that Paul puts out (dont yammer on about marxist isolationism, etc.) you KNOW he has some very lucid points amongst the stuff you dont like. Show me a better candidate that will defend the principles of my civil liberty and I’m all ears.[/quote]
Well, his supporters are by and large batshit loonballs - look no further than the lunacy posted by them in PWI - but I have a simple question: why not support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? Paul’s true colors have been shown and his message of libertarianism has been tainted with all that sordid stuff - so why not throw your full weight behind a guy like Gary Johnson?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I get it, it feels smugly good to “know Paul is unelectable” and boy does it feel good to dismiss his supporters as batshit loonballs but guess what, I feel the same about my friends that supported Bush and Obama (as in “are you fucking serious voting for that guy?” I concede the point that the newsletters are disturbing and a pain point. Produce another candidate that stands for the better ideas that Paul puts out (dont yammer on about marxist isolationism, etc.) you KNOW he has some very lucid points amongst the stuff you dont like. Show me a better candidate that will defend the principles of my civil liberty and I’m all ears.[/quote]
Well, his supporters are by and large batshit loonballs - look no further than the lunacy posted by them in PWI - but I have a simple question: why not support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? Paul’s true colors have been shown and his message of libertarianism has been tainted with all that sordid stuff - so why not throw your full weight behind a guy like Gary Johnson?[/quote]
Because he does not make you mad.
Making conservobots made is awesome.
Also, he does have neither the support nor the people on the ground to shake up the Republican party.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because he does not make you mad.
Making conservobots made is awesome. [/quote]
Paul doesn’t make me mad - he’s a John Bircher on an exit ramp to the dustbin of history.
Paul isn’t shaking anything up - if anything, the Paul fiasco represents an awesome opportunity for the GOP to demonstrate what kinds of ideas are not welcome in the party, and that, frankly, can help the GOP isn the short and long term.
Bahahahahaha!
I love how mad you are that your loser party is crumbling before your eyes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Because he does not make you mad.
Making conservobots made is awesome. [/quote]
Paul doesn’t make me mad - he’s a John Bircher on an exit ramp to the dustbin of history.
Paul isn’t shaking anything up - if anything, the Paul fiasco represents an awesome opportunity for the GOP to demonstrate what kinds of ideas are not welcome in the party, and that, frankly, can help the GOP isn the short and long term.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bahahahahaha!
I love how mad you are that your loser party is crumbling before your eyes.[/quote]
It’s not my party - in any event, it isn’t crumbling.
Say, how has that cult-like investment in Ron Paul panned out for you? And what is your next cult going to be? You better start researching your next Absolute Truth and get in on it fast.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Because he does not make you mad.
Making conservobots made is awesome. [/quote]
Paul doesn’t make me mad - he’s a John Bircher on an exit ramp to the dustbin of history.
Paul isn’t shaking anything up - if anything, the Paul fiasco represents an awesome opportunity for the GOP to demonstrate what kinds of ideas are not welcome in the party, and that, frankly, can help the GOP isn the short and long term.[/quote]
[/quote]
Whoops - looks like you picked the wrong historical uniform for Dr. Paul. I fixed that your you. You’re welcome.
I think it’s hilarious that the only dirt people have on Ron Paul after thirty years in office is something he didn’t even write and is obviously not in line with what he believes if you look at what he’s actually said and how he’s voted.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that the only dirt people have on Ron Paul after thirty years in office is something he didn’t even write and is obviously not in line with what he believes if you look at what he’s actually said and how he’s voted.[/quote]
As the facts are playing out, it’s looking unlikely that the “I didn’t write it excuse” isn’t holding up.
But more to the point you raise - this connection with racist and conspiracist ideas is perfectly in line with what he believes: he’s a garden variety, anti-government, black-helicopter-fearing racialist. “Libertarians” like these are a dime a dozen, and the profile fits.
Now, we not only know his voting record, but we know are getting a good sense as to what his motivations were behind this voting record, and it’s ugly. Ugly as hell.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that the only dirt people have on Ron Paul after thirty years in office is something he didn’t even write and is obviously not in line with what he believes if you look at what he’s actually said and how he’s voted.[/quote]
As the facts are playing out, it’s looking unlikely that the “I didn’t write it excuse” isn’t holding up.
But more to the point you raise - this connection with racist and conspiracist ideas is perfectly in line with what he believes: he’s a garden variety, anti-government, black-helicopter-fearing racialist. “Libertarians” like these are a dime a dozen, and the profile fits.
Now, we not only know his voting record, but we know are getting a good sense as to what his motivations were behind this voting record, and it’s ugly. Ugly as hell.[/quote]
Ah, you are one of those liberals who can justify voting for the most vile shit as long as it is meant well.
Allegedly.
God forbid that someone would leave other people alone out of the evil in his black, black heart.
Getting desperate?
Thunderbolt, proudly upholding the proud liberal tradition of telling black people what to think.
This is what he says, this is how he voted.
A poll released Tuesday found that in head-to-head election match-ups between President Barack Obama and various Republican presidential candidates, Texas Rep. Ron Paul fared best among non-white voters.
In a hypothetical contest against the president, the CNN/Opinion Research poll found Paul with 25 percent of the non-white vote.
Romney received 20 percent of that demographic against Obama, Texas Gov. Rick Perry 17 percent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann 18 percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 15 percent.
Paul campaign press secretary Gary Howard, who is himself an African American, told The Daily Caller that his candidate?s opposition to the War on Drugs has helped him win support from minorities.
?The figures in this poll show that voters are looking at Congressman Paul?s decades-long history of fighting for the individual liberties of all Americans,? said Howard.
?He has the strongest record of any candidate in this presidential race of standing up for civil liberties, and is also a staunch advocate of ending the drug war and fixing our biased court system which unfairly punishes minorities,? he said.
Read more: Poll: Ron Paul would fare best against Obama among non-white voters | The Daily Caller
Mwuahahahaha…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that the only dirt people have on Ron Paul after thirty years in office is something he didn’t even write and is obviously not in line with what he believes if you look at what he’s actually said and how he’s voted.[/quote]
As the facts are playing out, it’s looking unlikely that the “I didn’t write it excuse” isn’t holding up.
But more to the point you raise - this connection with racist and conspiracist ideas is perfectly in line with what he believes: he’s a garden variety, anti-government, black-helicopter-fearing racialist. “Libertarians” like these are a dime a dozen, and the profile fits.
Now, we not only know his voting record, but we know are getting a good sense as to what his motivations were behind this voting record, and it’s ugly. Ugly as hell.[/quote]
Lol. What a ridiculous misrepresentation. Are we supposed to take you seriously?
Then, who wrote them? Don’t say he doesn’t know, or that he doesn’t want to betray some racialist buddy of his who went too far under the Paul name. He’s running for President, he needs to name names and clear this up. Otherwise, it’s his. And it’s going to increasingly become his.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then, who wrote them? Don’t say he doesn’t know, or that he doesn’t want to betray some racialist buddy of his who went too far under the Paul name. He’s running for President, he needs to name names and clear this up. Otherwise, it’s his. And it’s going to increasingly become his.[/quote]
I actually agree with this. I have a sneaking feeling it may have been Rockwell, which would suck, but regardless of who it was this needs to be cleared up.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then, who wrote them? Don’t say he doesn’t know, or that he doesn’t want to betray some racialist buddy of his who went too far under the Paul name. He’s running for President, he needs to name names and clear this up. Otherwise, it’s his. And it’s going to increasingly become his.[/quote]
Somebody needs to fall on the sword.
Publicly, bloodily and soon.