Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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Dr Richard Toye, a Cambridge historian, said he chanced on a typed article, written by Churchill in 1937 but unpublished, among proofs and press cuttings at the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge.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.[/quote]

I will admit that Ron Paul never went so far as to carpet bomb villages in order to keep them in line, or to starve hundreds of thousands of people during an armistice and negotiations, or allowed thousands of people dying on a ship that was sure to be sunk because he stuffed a civilian vessel with ammunition making it a legitimate target and such, BUT, you never know, should he get elected, he might.

Therefore these comparisons are not shameful, they are speculative until we know how many atrocities a president Paul could pile on top of each other.

502

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I will admit that Ron Paul never went so far as to carpet bomb villages in order to keep them in line, or to starve hundreds of thousands of people during an armistice and negotiations, or allowed thousands of people dying on a ship that was sure to be sunk because he stuffed a civilian vessel with ammunition making it a legitimate target and such, BUT, you never know, should he get elected, he might.

Therefore these comparisons are not shameful, they are speculative until we know how many atrocities a president Paul could pile on top of each other. [/quote]

You know what a tank is? Churchill literally invented the tank. Its first name was “Churchill’s folly.” Churchill was one of the world’s first pilots and he established the world’s first air force. During the 30’s - ‘the wilderness years’ - Elijah? - he led the opposition to the isolationists and was responsible for British re-armament. He also won the Second World War. And that’s not the half of it.

Ron Paul has the same policies as the isolationists of the 30’s(including the conspiratorial crap) and he has passed one piece of legislation in 25 years whilst criticising ‘career politicians’ - your comparison is beyond ridiculous.

503

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul has the same policies as the isolationists of the 30’s(including the conspiratorial crap) and he has passed one piece of legislation in 25 years whilst criticising ‘career politicians’ - your comparison is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]

What if Ron Paul’s motivation is not to pass more legislation but rather less of it?

504
505
506

Ron Paul’s New Hampshire Victory Speech (CNN)

507

When Paulites attack!

508

When social introverts have too much time on there hands and access to high speed internet in their mom’s basement…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Paulites attack!

509
510

“They said Ron was unelectable. But Reagan knew better. Ron Paul does too.”

511

[quote]JEATON wrote:
When social introverts have too much time on there hands and access to high speed internet in their mom’s basement…

[/quote]

512

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
When social introverts have too much time on there hands and access to high speed internet in their mom’s basement…

[/quote]

I listened to Levine tonight. Used to have a log of respect for him and listened often. He is overwhelmed, and his is doing himself and Romney no favors. Tripping over himself, Misspeaking as to what Romney said and what Paul Said.

I have lost a lot of respect for Levine.

I would burn his books if they weren’t in my Nook…(yes, kidding)

513

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Paulites attack!

Is this thing for real? Or is it an “internet ad”?

514

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
When Paulites attack!

Is this thing for real? Or is it an “internet ad”? [/quote]

Internet ad. Nothing to do wit Paul and his campaign. But Sexmachine is not going to let a little perspective get in the way of a chance to attack RP.

515

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Is this thing for real? Or is it an “internet ad”? [/quote]

It’s an internet ad and is not connected to Paul’s official campaign team. However, it is a video made by Paul supporters and as such drawing attention to it is legitimate criticism. The ad’s theme is representative of an element within the Paul movement.

516

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
However, it is a video made by a Paul supporter.[/quote]

fixed.

517

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul has the same policies as the isolationists of the 30’s(including the conspiratorial crap) and he has passed one piece of legislation in 25 years whilst criticising ‘career politicians’ - your comparison is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]

What if Ron Paul’s motivation is not to pass more legislation but rather less of it?
[/quote]

Well, then, he should definitely stay in the the House, where he has achieved his ambitions: he has had passed only 1 article of legislation out of 620 proposals, in 20-odd years.

So little would remain to be achieved as President after that remarkable record.

518

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul has the same policies as the isolationists of the 30’s(including the conspiratorial crap) and he has passed one piece of legislation in 25 years whilst criticising ‘career politicians’ - your comparison is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]

What if Ron Paul’s motivation is not to pass more legislation but rather less of it?
[/quote]

Well, then, he should definitely stay in the the House, where he has achieved his ambitions: he has had passed only 1 article of legislation out of 620 proposals, in 20-odd years.

So little would remain to be achieved as President after that remarkable record.[/quote]

As a president he would have a single veto power. He also would control what money gets spend by the Executive Branch. He also would be able to remove all the unconstitutional Executive Orders. He would also remove cabinet positions that he deemed unnecessary. How could you consider that only “little” achievement?

519

Oh and let us not forget, as the Commander-in-Chief a President Paul could order the troops home.

520

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul has the same policies as the isolationists of the 30’s(including the conspiratorial crap) and he has passed one piece of legislation in 25 years whilst criticising ‘career politicians’ - your comparison is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]

What if Ron Paul’s motivation is not to pass more legislation but rather less of it?
[/quote]

Well, then, he should definitely stay in the the House, where he has achieved his ambitions: he has had passed only 1 article of legislation out of 620 proposals, in 20-odd years.

So little would remain to be achieved as President after that remarkable record.[/quote]

What!?!

But there are so many more bills that should not be passed and they call him Doctor No NOW.

Time for a President No.