Why are you arguing with SexMachine? Do you really expect to get through to someone like that?
I have to bump this thread myself now? Okay, Paulies listen to Newt. Your leader is a libertine with no values.
Looks to me like the revolution fizzled pretty badly.
Maybe you Paulies could do something like the Occupy Wall Street nuts. You know parade around somewhere with signs make some noise.
You have to do something because after Ron Paul loses this election badly your movement is dead.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.[/quote]
I’ve seen enough election cycles to know just how foolish your comment is. The republican party is far from dead. Back in 1964 when Barry Goldwater won the nomination over a more moderate Nelson Rockefeller and was consequently trashed in the largest popular landslide in the history of Presidential elections they said the republican party was dead. After Ronald Reagan won two consecutive terms, one of them by the biggest electoral landslide in history, his Vice President went on to win the Presidency. We had 12 years of republican rule they said the democratic party was dead.
Anyone who knows anything about politics (certainly not you as you thought Paul was going to win) knows that neither party is dead and that Ron Paul is a pimple on the ass of the republican party. You know it’s there and it is irritating but that’s pretty much as far as it goes. And nothing he says or does will mean a thimble full of spit four years from now.
As to you the rest of your post…in the end we are all dead. 100 years from today certainly none of this will matter. You have such a really good knack for pointing out things that don’t matter yet missing the important things that are right in front of your nose.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.[/quote]
I’ve seen enough election cycles to know just how foolish your comment is. The republican party is far from dead. Back in 1964 when Barry Goldwater won the nomination over a more moderate Nelson Rockefeller and was consequently trashed in the largest popular landslide in the history of Presidential elections they said the republican party was dead. After Ronald Reagan won two consecutive terms, one of them by the biggest electoral landslide in history, his Vice President went on to win the Presidency. We had 12 years of republican rule they said the democratic party was dead.
Anyone who knows anything about politics (certainly not you as you thought Paul was going to win) knows that neither party is dead and that Ron Paul is a pimple on the ass of the republican party. You know it’s there and it is irritating but that’s pretty much as far as it goes. And nothing he says or does will mean a thimble full of spit four years from now.
As to you the rest of your post…in the end we are all dead. 100 years from today certainly none of this will matter. You have such a really good knack for pointing out things that don’t matter yet missing the important things that are right in front of your nose. [/quote]
You have a knack for missing the things that matter because of the things that happen rigt in front of your nose…
Look! A Butterfly!
Ron Paul will be dead by the time this little Paultard’s balls have dropped. Or is that R for Rand? Either way, if the GOP doesn’t deal with this cancer it will be destroyed from within. Is Rand an anarchist like father? A miniarchist? Or a constitutionalist? These are the sort of questions the GOP needs to ask. That “butterfly” seems more like a cockroach to me.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have to bump this thread myself now? Okay, Paulies listen to Newt. Your leader is a libertine with no values.
[/quote]
Oh yea, Ron Paul the empty man with no values…
And you choose Newt as your messenger on this?
LOL!!
Haaahahahaaaha
hahahahahaaahaha *cough cough *
blaahahaha cough
dies of laughter
You’re killin me SM. You’ve had some funny posts on this thread, but it looks like what may have been your first serious one really takes the cake
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.[/quote]
Zeb’s thought is typical of PWI threads , thinking if they talk some one to death ,then they are right
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.[/quote]
Zeb’s thought is typical of PWI threads , thinking if they talk some one to death ,then they are right
[/quote]
I know I hate people who are able to articulate an argument. Just because they can make a claim and then proceed to back it up with evidence does not make them right. After all you have your long believed false dogma that’s served you well all these years, why change any of that. Why even question it?
Carry on.
0:30 - "Now our campaign has the top three donors - first it’s the Army, then it’s the Airforce, then it’s the Nay-vee, ha! ha! (Cheering)
Really? How so? Why doesn’t the media pick up on these lies? Because Paul is not a serious contender. He’s a three-time loser.
EDIT: BTW - That was individual donor by employer. And who is the largest donor? Paypal - $900,000
How will the Paulies explain this latest lie?
1st clip - Ron Paul says he wouldn’t have killed OBL and that he would’ve relied on the Pakistanis to arrest him and hand him over.
2nd clip - Ron Paul says Pakistan were hiding and protecting OBL.
For some reason the Paultards like this video and have given it many thumbs up. I think they miss the point. Read 1 and 2 again then think it over.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
0:30 - "Now our campaign has the top three donors - first it’s the Army, then it’s the Airforce, then it’s the Nay-vee, ha! ha! (Cheering)
Really? How so? Why doesn’t the media pick up on these lies? Because Paul is not a serious contender. He’s a three-time loser.
[/quote]
Ya know, now that I think about it, I’m glad you asked that.
Question: Why doesn’t the media try putting a fraction of the effort toward this “lie” that they spent on the whole newsletter thing?
Possible Answer: Because his explanation to this would show something they don’t want seen.
Heyheyhey - before you even START - at least my answer made sense. You can’t say he’s not worth attacking if he’s already been attacked.
Well, there you have it folks. The only one left defending Ron Paul is a Muslim, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and he refers to Bush II as “demonic.” His nonsense, gibberish, obfuscating response is there for all to see.
Hahaa - which nonsense?
Which gibberish?
All that’s left is your ad hominem / appeal to authority. And you know? Considering how much we disagree I’ve been extremely respectful to you for no apparent reason. Maybe that’s my own personal flaw
[quote]
Heyheyhey - before you even START - at least my answer made sense. [/quote]
How many times do I have to show you your own nonsense?
If you are saying that anything I have said is disrepectful in the context of someone who promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories and calls Bush “demonic” then you would be mistaken/wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
your movement is dead. [/quote]
The republican party is dead, and in the end so are you.[/quote]
Zeb’s thought is typical of PWI threads , thinking if they talk some one to death ,then they are right
[/quote]
I know I hate people who are able to articulate an argument. Just because they can make a claim and then proceed to back it up with evidence does not make them right. After all you have your long believed false dogma that’s served you well all these years, why change any of that. Why even question it?
Carry on.
[/quote]
It is you that believes the the Rhetoric that is spoon fed to the American public , my articulation is no problem , my problem would be punctuation 
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
1st clip - Ron Paul says he wouldn’t have killed OBL and that he would’ve relied on the Pakistanis to arrest him and hand him over.
2nd clip - Ron Paul says Pakistan were hiding and protecting OBL.
For some reason the Paultards like this video and have given it many thumbs up. I think they miss the point. Read 1 and 2 again then think it over.[/quote]
is it possible you see something that no one else sees or possibly something that does not exist ?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you are saying that anything I have said is disrepectful in the context of someone who promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories and calls Bush “demonic” then you would be mistaken/wrong.[/quote]
Well, on the 9/11 stuff I’ve only really had a very minor involvement on the many pages of that thread. You’ve been in there longer than I have… I wasn’t “promoting” nothing. When you and Mak attacked that video without even watching it - that deserved a response from multiple people. I was one of them.
On the “demonic” thing - that wasn’t my point - nor was it even originally my words. Mak sarcastically said that, and I rolled with it - as I usually do. You’ve called me batshit insane multiple times on here - what did I do? I rolled with it, I told you that I’m gonna bring you the smelliest batshit there is. Have I not delivered?
See, but these issues you bring - they don’t belong here. They belong on the threads where you saw them. And you know that. That was the disrespect. You haven’t “exposed” me. I wasn’t hiding.
This is how your post reads to me
“Well there you have it folks. The only one defending Ron Paul now is an obvious piece of shit. And he can’t even talk.”
Addressing everyone but me, cuz I’m just to retarded to talk right? That’s ok, I’m genuinely not at all hurt by it - honestly it feels good.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
is it possible you see something that no one else sees or possibly something that does not exist ?
[/quote]
Well, let’s see. I say that’s a video with two clips of Ron Paul. And that in the first clip he says that we should have relied upon the Pakistanis to arrest OBL and hand him over to us. The second clip is him saying that Pakistan was hiding and protecting OBL. Now I keep assuming that everyone can put two and two together. Perhaps not everyone can. If Pakistan were hiding and protecting OBL how could we rely upon them to arrest him and hand him over? And the answer to that question is we couldn’t. We couldn’t rely upon the Pakistanis to arrest OBL and hand him over - and the reason we couldn’t rely upon them to do so is that they were hiding and protecting him.