Forum Post: Fuck Ron Paul
Posted 12 years ago on April 26, 2012, 6:37 a.m. EST by Julian
(57)
from St Lucia, QLD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Title saids it all.
Public Forum
2 comments 4 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Ron Paul fucked himself, so he saved us the trouble (although now we have to deal with the ramblings of what his sperm produced for the next few decades, but oh well) :)
Ron Paul is done.
The only candidate who doesn't support starting wars for political reasons is to be fucked? Man are people seriously stupid these days.
The problem is he combines his libertarian anti-war stance with racial paranoia and stereotyping. I'm thinking our society should not have to be set back almost a century, in order to stop getting ourselves involved in needless wars. Quite frankly, Obama hasn't gotten us into any new wars (Libya was not a war for the US), Obama is pulling us out of Afghanistan, and we are cutting defense spending under Obama. He definitely could do better, but he has to navigate through conservative bullshit every step of the way, so I'd say he's doing an okay job (notwithstanding, I have my complaints).
Good thing Libya was not a war.
What would a war look like? Us dropping bombs on them? LOL
Using military assets for Libya (and pretty much spearheading/leading the whole effort), but it's not a war?
Don't forget the increased drone strikes in Yemen, and Pakistan.
(I'm trying to go one way or another, I'm just pointing it out)
Right, but Libya was not a real war for us, it was an air campaign (without boots on the ground, no American fatalities or even injuries that I'm aware of), and we have to draw a distinction between this and something like the Iraq invasion. I for one would support providing assistance to Syrian rebels (in much the same way we supported Libyan rebels). No American boots on the ground, no adopting ownership of a new war, just assistance (even if purely covert).
I don't want our troops dying overseas, unless there's a real and imminent national security imperative. But this doesn't mean we have to stand by and watch as tyrants slaughter their own people. I would like to see Assad hanging in the streets like Mussolini.
When Obama's 30,000 drones take to the United States skies over the next year, will you be worried about the government declaring war on it's own people, or will it just be an air campaign with no American MILITARY fatalities or even injuries?
We have stood by while a tyrant slaughters civilians in other nations... what do we expect? What do we deserve?
I agree with this objection. The drone program should not be allowed to grow beyond current levels (and ideally, we shrink it, although now that the technological cat is out of the bag, it's probably impossible to completely put it back in).
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-6
Okay, so who are you voting for?
Obama .... because he's slightly less bad than his opposition (or no one, haven't quite decided yet, depends on my mood in November) :)
We aren't pulling out of Afghanistan until at least 2024. Seriously. Check it out.
We'll be mostly out by 2014 (but we'll still have special ops, the considerable assets they need to do their jobs, maybe a continued training mission, etc.). But, we'll only have maybe 10% of the troop presence we have their now (so in terms of cost, Afghanistan will be just about done after 2014).
Reasons? We have to keep the Taliban from cutting the opium production and protect the TAPI gas pipeline due for completion in 2016.
I don't know why we would need to protect a gas pipeline so far away (when we hardly have a shortage of natural gas here at home, and it's not even very likely that our companies will benefit from this project, although perhaps an American company is building the pipeline, so maybe)??
Because Iran has one already built to the border of Pakistan, ready to link to Afghanistan and India. This will compete with the TAPI pipeline due in 2016. It's part of our economic war on Iran. More info on google search IPI TAPI gas pipeline.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/323532
$4 BILLION A YEAR.
But at least we promise not to use Afghanistan as a base for launching attacks on other nations...
...because we didn't invade it against all logic and common sense because of it's location as a military stronghold, good for launching attacks to sooo many conveniently located places...
Yeah, the puppet government we put in place would definitely rather lose $4B in aid per year than let us attack... say... Iran.
Good luck with that 10% troop presence though, I really hope that pans out for you. Of course, it would mean starting a war somewhere else, but sacrifices have to be made. With the political climate the way it is, there's no way they will bring all those soldiers home.
For as much as I hate war and I think it permanently damages the minds, bodies and souls of everyone it touches, I also know for a fact that US soldiers are the most truly patriotic people alive. They won't bow to a tyrant. They won't tolerate a 'free speech cage' on the steps of the building where the Bill of Rights was signed. Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Who do you think the greatest threat to the constitution is?
As an Iraq veteran, I thank you for your comments, and I think the greatest threat to our liberty is ourselves (and our own government, who under the pretext of terrorism, is seeking to slowly erode our freedoms).
If it were up to me, I'd do everything in my power to withdraw our forces from everywhere, and extrapolate ourselves as much as possible from the affairs of others.
We agree! All I really want is for our soldiers to be able to come home.
You were a soldier, right? So you know that soldiers have specific knowledge of things that civilians are unlikely to ever encounter. Stuff like gang-fed weaponry. 'Insurgent' tactics like having multiple detonation bomb attacks so you initially kill a few people, but half an hour later you get all the police, military and medical first responders. Battlefield medical techniques. Urban warfare techniques. Intimate knowledge of the way our armored vehicles work, including their weaknesses.
If the government was about to declare war on it's own citizens, training a bunch of them in urban warfare and teaching them how to secure and patrol inhabited areas would be maybe the dumbest possible thing they could ever do. There are two possible end games:
Never bring the troops home. This should be easy enough to accomplish what with all the available wars we could jump into.
Bring the troops home, but launch a war from the third dimension. What do all of the countries we have been attacking have in common with the US general public? No Air Force. And even if we did manage to employ every single commercial airliner and crop duster to combat a drone strike, it would be to no avail.
I suppose there is a third option, which didn't even occur to me at first:
The drones report is pretty fucking scary.
You don't have to agree with everything he stands for. At the moment we have bigger problems, and he's the only one that doesn't want to get us all killed!!!
Obama is a shoe in. The banksters and warmongers already have their polite, well spoken face to use when bombing the rest of the planet, and stealing our country's money. With barely a peep from the people.
Why on earth would they change course?
this topic is controversial. the reason is to show what majority of people think about Ron Paul. seems like he the only candidate with human nature and has " no strings attached" comparativly to others.
You don't need vulgarity to compliment ron & rand
Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas
You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !
You remember “George-yellowcake uranium”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.
Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.
@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;
@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”
@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }
@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”
@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!"
Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"
@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."
You can claim – b.b.b.b.b.but Ron did not write these awful things! HE PRINTED THEM!
Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement
of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?
My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too
It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul,
he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.
Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure
.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?
google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”
The worse thing is, Rand didn't even understand Nietzsche (how such a second rate philosopher who authored such literary monstrosities, ever became famous, is beyond me) :)
Thanks for posting. The only candidate that will make America stronger and not bought by the military industrial complex. Work for Boeing? Northrop? GI?
If it will bring the troops home, I will personally fuck Ron Paul. Anything else I can do for you?
A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for continued war.
Ya, vote Obama instead. lol
Also, "Title saids it all"? Really?