Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not.

482

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not. [/quote]

Principles? Like accepting checks for racist newsletters published in his name. Like pandering to Alex Jones and other fruit cake conspiracy theorists. Like being an earmark specialist himself, and lamely using the excuse that he doesn’t vote for the spending bills, knowing they’ll go through with his earmarks, regardless. By misrepresenting his draft status with respect to another candidates. Ron Paul has thankfully seen his last fruitless run at the WH.

483

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not. [/quote]

Principles? Like accepting checks for racist newsletters published in his name. Like pandering to Alex Jones and other fruit cake conspiracy theorists. Like being an earmark specialist himself, and lamely using the excuse that he doesn’t vote for the spending bills, knowing they’ll go through with his earmarks, regardless. By misrepresenting his draft status with respect to another candidates. Ron Paul has thankfully seen his last fruitless run at the WH.
[/quote]

You defending Newt’s lack of a spine is not a good thing.

484

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not. [/quote]

Principles? Like accepting checks for racist newsletters published in his name. Like pandering to Alex Jones and other fruit cake conspiracy theorists. Like being an earmark specialist himself, and lamely using the excuse that he doesn’t vote for the spending bills, knowing they’ll go through with his earmarks, regardless. By misrepresenting his draft status with respect to another candidates. Ron Paul has thankfully seen his last fruitless run at the WH.
[/quote]

You defending Newt’s lack of a spine is not a good thing.
[/quote]

Maybe Paul will grow one and admit he wrote the newsletters with his name on them, and of which he cashed checks for.

485

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe Paul will grow one and admit he wrote the newsletters with his name on them, and of which he cashed checks for.
[/quote]
He would have admitted it if he wrote them. Not that it matters anyway.

486

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or in other words, used a legal means to avoid the army. That’s fine, I’m not here to prosecute participation in Vietnam. But don’t get all high and mighty because his name came up, and Newt’s didn’t.

“I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain.”

His situation was different. He’d been through medical school.

[/quote]

Sloth, I knew you were old, err I mean experienced but I did not know you were that experienced.
Of course I am just playing. I enjoy most of your post and I am one to put a premium on experiential over conceptual knowledge.

But…
As my grandmother used to say (you might have gone to school with her), “It looks like your trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.”

He served. Honorably. End of story.

The last election cycle I was a hard core Romney supporter. I dismissed Paul and his supporters because of the image the main stream media gave him. I never took the time to find out for myself.

This time, a few of my acquaintances kept suggesting that I pay closer attention to Paul. I thought they were being nutty, but they are very successful, rock solid people, so I decided to brush up and show them the error of their ways.

I came away with a totally different opinion. I now see Paul as rock solid, honorable and congruent as any modern day public figure I can come up with. As corny as it may sound, I wish that I had been raised by a father like Dr. Paul. Though I have had a fair amount of success, I think it would be a mere shadow of what I could have accomplished with the example and direction of a man like that.

487

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or in other words, used a legal means to avoid the army. That’s fine, I’m not here to prosecute participation in Vietnam. But don’t get all high and mighty because his name came up, and Newt’s didn’t.

“I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain.”

His situation was different. He’d been through medical school.

[/quote]

Sloth, I knew you were old, err I mean experienced but I did not know you were that experienced.
Of course I am just playing. I enjoy most of your post and I am one to put a premium on experiential over conceptual knowledge.

But…
As my grandmother used to say (you might have gone to school with her), “It looks like your trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.”

He served. Honorably. End of story.

The last election cycle I was a hard core Romney supporter. I dismissed Paul and his supporters because of the image the main stream media gave him. I never took the time to find out for myself.

This time, a few of my acquaintances kept suggesting that I pay closer attention to Paul. I thought they were being nutty, but they are very successful, rock solid people, so I decided to brush up and show them the error of their ways.

I came away with a totally different opinion. I now see Paul as rock solid, honorable and congruent as any modern day public figure I can come up with. As corny as it may sound, I wish that I had been raised by a father like Dr. Paul. Though I have had a fair amount of success, I think it would be a mere shadow of what I could have accomplished with the example and direction of a man like that. [/quote]

I aint that old. The quote isn’t mine. Heck, I wasn’t even born at the time.

488

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe Paul will grow one and admit he wrote the newsletters with his name on them, and of which he cashed checks for.
[/quote]
He would have admitted it if he wrote them. Not that it matters anyway.[/quote]

No he wouldn’t have, he’s running for President.

489

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or in other words, used a legal means to avoid the army. That’s fine, I’m not here to prosecute participation in Vietnam. But don’t get all high and mighty because his name came up, and Newt’s didn’t.

“I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain.”

That’s what I get from “spot checking in” between dinner, homework, and getting the kids to bed.

You’re alright even if your not an old Focker.

His situation was different. He’d been through medical school.

[/quote]

Sloth, I knew you were old, err I mean experienced but I did not know you were that experienced.
Of course I am just playing. I enjoy most of your post and I am one to put a premium on experiential over conceptual knowledge.

But…
As my grandmother used to say (you might have gone to school with her), “It looks like your trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.”

He served. Honorably. End of story.

The last election cycle I was a hard core Romney supporter. I dismissed Paul and his supporters because of the image the main stream media gave him. I never took the time to find out for myself.

This time, a few of my acquaintances kept suggesting that I pay closer attention to Paul. I thought they were being nutty, but they are very successful, rock solid people, so I decided to brush up and show them the error of their ways.

I came away with a totally different opinion. I now see Paul as rock solid, honorable and congruent as any modern day public figure I can come up with. As corny as it may sound, I wish that I had been raised by a father like Dr. Paul. Though I have had a fair amount of success, I think it would be a mere shadow of what I could have accomplished with the example and direction of a man like that. [/quote]

I aint that old. The quote isn’t mine. Heck, I wasn’t even born at the time.[/quote]

490

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or in other words, used a legal means to avoid the army. That’s fine, I’m not here to prosecute participation in Vietnam. But don’t get all high and mighty because his name came up, and Newt’s didn’t.

“I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain.”

That’s what I get from “spot checking in” between dinner, homework, and getting the kids to bed.

You’re alright even if your not an old Focker.

His situation was different. He’d been through medical school.

[/quote]

Sloth, I knew you were old, err I mean experienced but I did not know you were that experienced.
Of course I am just playing. I enjoy most of your post and I am one to put a premium on experiential over conceptual knowledge.

But…
As my grandmother used to say (you might have gone to school with her), “It looks like your trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.”

He served. Honorably. End of story.

The last election cycle I was a hard core Romney supporter. I dismissed Paul and his supporters because of the image the main stream media gave him. I never took the time to find out for myself.

This time, a few of my acquaintances kept suggesting that I pay closer attention to Paul. I thought they were being nutty, but they are very successful, rock solid people, so I decided to brush up and show them the error of their ways.

I came away with a totally different opinion. I now see Paul as rock solid, honorable and congruent as any modern day public figure I can come up with. As corny as it may sound, I wish that I had been raised by a father like Dr. Paul. Though I have had a fair amount of success, I think it would be a mere shadow of what I could have accomplished with the example and direction of a man like that. [/quote]

I aint that old. The quote isn’t mine. Heck, I wasn’t even born at the time.[/quote]
[/quote]

At first read, I thought you had mistaken the Ron Paul quote for my experience with the draft. I aint that old! Suppose I read right over the just playing part. Sorry!

491

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

As usual, orion does not understand the context; he is just prejudiced to Dr. Paul’s various peculiarities. I am just a little closer to the historical context.

I have no comment no Newt’s draft status.

I do not know if Paul invoked the Berry Plan, but it sure looks that way.
If so, Paul was not drafted “because he was a competent human being,”–a judgment upon which I will withhold comment–but because he was draft eligible. If he invoked the Berry Plan option, he was able to defer his draft through his internship (and residency?), and then serve as an officer (usually a rank equivalent to captain). This Plan benefitted both the armed forces and the draft-age medical student.

This is not necessarily a dishonorable choice–even in the context of the Cuban missile crisis-- but it was a special option available only to medical students and doctors-in-training. Sloth is correct; it is not comparable to being drafted and being deferred, and it is not the same as volunteering for service. (Had Paul not pledged the Berry Plan, but volunteered for service in 1962, he would have been “buck private,” and not a commissioned officer, in the very uncertain times following the Cuban missile crisis.)

492

And I want to stress, I am not criticizing that he was a surgeon. Only the comparison between his and another candidates situation.

493

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is not necessarily a dishonorable choice…
[/quote]

DrSkeptix…

You, along with jj-dude, are among the far too infrequent posters that I pay special attention to when you choose to participate. I almost always find something of benefit or interest to me, often following your info down a proverbial “google rabbit hole”.

I am fine with your dislike for Ron Paul. I do, however, think the above statement has no place in this discussion. The use of the qualifier “necessarily” is beneath your caliber. To try to spin his service in any way less than honorable is…well, less than honorable.

Question his views on foreign policy, etc., but not his service.

494

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is not necessarily a dishonorable choice…
[/quote]

DrSkeptix…

You, along with jj-dude, are among the far too infrequent posters that I pay special attention to when you choose to participate. I almost always find something of benefit or interest to me, often following your info down a proverbial “google rabbit hole”.

I am fine with your dislike for Ron Paul. I do, however, think the above statement has no place in this discussion. The use of the qualifier “necessarily” is beneath your caliber. To try to spin his service in any way less than honorable is…well, less than honorable.

Question his views on foreign policy, etc., but not his service. [/quote]

Thanks sincerely for the thought, but: Please. I said “NOT” necessarily. Had I said that it WAS a dishonorable choice, you would have a point. I purposefully used the term “not necessarily” to indicate a complete absence of judgment in the matter.

I do not impugn Dr. Paul’s service at all–not one bit. I have no reason to do so. I know nothing about it, and all the rest of us know about it is what he choses to disclose. To be clear: the Berry Plan–if he indeed exercised it in 1962–was simply a choice offered to some that was unavailable to others.

Now, it may interest you to know that someone very, very close to me pledged on the Berry Plan and served with honor, and that that choice was unavailable to me when I became subject to the draft.

495

I don’t know if this was posted or not

496

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is not necessarily a dishonorable choice…
[/quote]

DrSkeptix…

You, along with jj-dude, are among the far too infrequent posters that I pay special attention to when you choose to participate. I almost always find something of benefit or interest to me, often following your info down a proverbial “google rabbit hole”.

I am fine with your dislike for Ron Paul. I do, however, think the above statement has no place in this discussion. The use of the qualifier “necessarily” is beneath your caliber. To try to spin his service in any way less than honorable is…well, less than honorable.

Question his views on foreign policy, etc., but not his service. [/quote]

Thanks sincerely for the thought, but: Please. I said “NOT” necessarily. Had I said that it WAS a dishonorable choice, you would have a point. I purposefully used the term “not necessarily” to indicate a complete absence of judgment in the matter.

I do not impugn Dr. Paul’s service at all–not one bit. I have no reason to do so. I know nothing about it, and all the rest of us know about it is what he choses to disclose. To be clear: the Berry Plan–if he indeed exercised it in 1962–was simply a choice offered to some that was unavailable to others.

Now, it may interest you to know that someone very, very close to me pledged on the Berry Plan and served with honor, and that that choice was unavailable to me when I became subject to the draft.

[/quote]

actually your friend didn’t necessarily serve without honor ;]

497

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is not necessarily a dishonorable choice…
[/quote]

DrSkeptix…

You, along with jj-dude, are among the far too infrequent posters that I pay special attention to when you choose to participate. I almost always find something of benefit or interest to me, often following your info down a proverbial “google rabbit hole”.

I am fine with your dislike for Ron Paul. I do, however, think the above statement has no place in this discussion. The use of the qualifier “necessarily” is beneath your caliber. To try to spin his service in any way less than honorable is…well, less than honorable.

Question his views on foreign policy, etc., but not his service. [/quote]

Thanks sincerely for the thought, but: Please. I said “NOT” necessarily. Had I said that it WAS a dishonorable choice, you would have a point. I purposefully used the term “not necessarily” to indicate a complete absence of judgment in the matter.

I do not impugn Dr. Paul’s service at all–not one bit. I have no reason to do so. I know nothing about it, and all the rest of us know about it is what he choses to disclose. To be clear: the Berry Plan–if he indeed exercised it in 1962–was simply a choice offered to some that was unavailable to others.

Now, it may interest you to know that someone very, very close to me pledged on the Berry Plan and served with honor, and that that choice was unavailable to me when I became subject to the draft.

[/quote]

actually your friend didn’t necessarily serve without honor ;][/quote]

[i]I search without tire to purge the crass expletive,
To soothe the phrase and score the ire-causative.

But is there no thought one couldn’t ask in the negative,
And not answer, honorably, in the positive?
[/i]

498

Kicking ass :slight_smile:

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

And not Robama

499

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not. [/quote]

Principles? Like accepting checks for racist newsletters published in his name. Like pandering to Alex Jones and other fruit cake conspiracy theorists. Like being an earmark specialist himself, and lamely using the excuse that he doesn’t vote for the spending bills, knowing they’ll go through with his earmarks, regardless. By misrepresenting his draft status with respect to another candidates. Ron Paul has thankfully seen his last fruitless run at the WH.
[/quote]

You defending Newt’s lack of a spine is not a good thing.
[/quote]

Maybe Paul will grow one and admit he wrote the newsletters with his name on them, and of which he cashed checks for.
[/quote]

Winston Churchill’s views on anti-Semitism were at the centre of a row last night after Cambridge University claimed to have discovered a 70-year-old document in which the future Prime Minister wrote that Jews may ‘have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer’, inviting terms of abuse such as ‘Hebrew bloodsucker’.

Dr Richard Toye, a Cambridge historian, said he chanced on a typed article, written by Churchill in 1937 but unpublished, among proofs and press cuttings at the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge. The university issued a press release trumpeting, ‘Uncovered: The “lost” paper Churchill kept from publication,’ and promoting a book by Toye which is to be published later this month.

But when The Observer contacted Sir Martin Gilbert, the eminent historian and Churchill biographer, the implication of anti-Semitism began to unravel. Gilbert, who also has a book out this summer, said the article was not written by Churchill at all, but rather his ghost writer, Adam Marshall Diston. He added that Churchill’s instructions for the article were different in both tone and content from what Diston eventually wrote, and pointed out that Diston was a supporter of Oswald Mosley, the notorious fascist and anti-Semite. Churchill had stopped its publication in a newspaper.

500

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You seem to ignore that Paul was drafted because he was a competent human being whereas Gingrich was not as sought after because he was, kind of, not.

[/quote]

Don’t just say stuff, to have something to say.
[/quote]

Oh please.

Newtie could have fought for his country, he chose not to.

He deferred five times because apparently other things were more inportant to him.

Now however he has a raging boner when it comes to sacrificing some Mid Western kids?

puuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaassseeeeee…

And yeah, he is so brilliant…swoons… to bad he has the integrity and backbone of strawberry jello.

Whenever it was his time to live up to his principles…

He.

Did.

Not. [/quote]

Principles? Like accepting checks for racist newsletters published in his name. Like pandering to Alex Jones and other fruit cake conspiracy theorists. Like being an earmark specialist himself, and lamely using the excuse that he doesn’t vote for the spending bills, knowing they’ll go through with his earmarks, regardless. By misrepresenting his draft status with respect to another candidates. Ron Paul has thankfully seen his last fruitless run at the WH.
[/quote]

You defending Newt’s lack of a spine is not a good thing.
[/quote]

Maybe Paul will grow one and admit he wrote the newsletters with his name on them, and of which he cashed checks for.
[/quote]

Winston Churchill’s views on anti-Semitism were at the centre of a row last night after Cambridge University claimed to have discovered a 70-year-old document in which the future Prime Minister wrote that Jews may ‘have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer’, inviting terms of abuse such as ‘Hebrew bloodsucker’.

Dr Richard Toye, a Cambridge historian, said he chanced on a typed article, written by Churchill in 1937 but unpublished, among proofs and press cuttings at the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge. The university issued a press release trumpeting, ‘Uncovered: The “lost” paper Churchill kept from publication,’ and promoting a book by Toye which is to be published later this month.

But when The Observer contacted Sir Martin Gilbert, the eminent historian and Churchill biographer, the implication of anti-Semitism began to unravel. Gilbert, who also has a book out this summer, said the article was not written by Churchill at all, but rather his ghost writer, Adam Marshall Diston. He added that Churchill’s instructions for the article were different in both tone and content from what Diston eventually wrote, and pointed out that Diston was a supporter of Oswald Mosley, the notorious fascist and anti-Semite. Churchill had stopped its publication in a newspaper. [/quote]

This would only confirm what is already known. Churchill was an ardent English nationalist who believed in the devine destiny of the English-speaking peoples and possibly by inferance, in relation to his overall theme; Protestantism - although he never professed to be a believer. He was flawed in many ways. If we concede that Cyrus was great does that mean he was perfect? The few anti-Semitic comments of Churchill; his brutal suppression of the Irish following the 1916 uprising; his desertion of Australia and blunder in Singapore in WWII and his folly in Egypt in the early 50’s are all to his discredit. Not withstanding that he was the greatest human being of the 20th century. To compare him to Ron Paul is shameful.